BY N. F. CABELL, A. M.
BY R. K.
CRALLE.
PUBLISHED BY JOHN ALLEN. 139 NASSAU
STREET.
BOSTON
: OTIS CLAPP, SCHOOL STREET.
LONDON : J. 3. HODSON AND W. NEWBERY.
1843.
Snowden & Prall. Print.
60 Vesey-street, N.
Y.
Page.
Mr.
Crallf.’s Letter, ........ 5
Introduction,
-------- - 39
Chapter
I.—Swedenborg.—The various classes of his readers.—To which
of them Dr. Pond
belongs.—Character of his attack, - 45
Chapter
II.—Dr. Pond’s work still farther characterised.—Perversions of
the
history of Swedenborg’s life, - - - - 50
Chapter
III.—Dr. Pond’s objections to the claims of Swedenborg consid
ered.—His argument
from miracles weighed, - - 54
Chapter
IV.—Dr. Pond’s unfairness in his mode of dealing with the doc
trines of
Swedenborg.—These doctrines particularly considered in contrast with those held
by Dr. Pond and his school, 64
Chapter V.—Dr. Pond’s charge
of Swedenborg’s misrepresentations of doctrines and characters, contradiction
of historical and scientific facts, and inconsistencies with himself; met and
refuted, 83
Chapter VI.—Dr. Pond’s
objection that Swedenborg lowers the standard of
Christian
piety, considered, - - - - - 118
Chapter
VII.—Dr. Pond’s charge against Swedenborg’s principles of inter
preting
the Scriptures, and his constitution of the canon, refuted, - - - - - - - - 126
Chapter
IX.—Swedenborg’s doctrine of the future life vindicated from Dr.
Pond’s cavils, - ...... 138
Chapter
X.—Swedenborg's doctrine of marriage, polygamy, concubin
age, and
scortation, set in its true light, - - - -
154
Chapter
XI.—Dr. Pond’s estimate of Swedenborg, and various minor
cavils, considered, - ..... 170
Chapter XII.—Conlcusory.—Appeal to Dr.
Pond, - - - 179
Appendix.—A. - - - - . -
* . .
185
Lynchburg,
Va., August 6th, 1S47.
Dear Sir:
I
have read Dr. Pond’s Book,
entitled “ Swedenborgianism" Reviewed,” which you placed in my
hands; and although the illiberal and contracted spirit in which it is written,
—combined with its frequently unfair statements and gross
misrepresentations,—deprives it, in my estimation, of all just claims to notice
; yet, as you requested it of me, and as it contained a kind of summary of the
vulgar objections urged against the New Church,— conceived in the ordinary
spirit of sectarian controversy, and addressed, with characteristic skill, to
the popular prejudices,—I had designed to reply to it at some length. Indeed,
during the last spring, I devoted such leisure hours as I eould command to the
task, and had made considerable progress in .the work, when my time and
attention was suddenly called to other matters, by an occurrence with which you
are already acquainted. It is now impossible for me to complete the work in
time to prevent the mischiefs which may, to some extent, possibly flow from the
labors of Dr. Pond. I must now content myself with some general reflections,
suggested by the perusal of the book, which, I hope, may tend, in some manner,
to correct the false impressions on certain points which seem to prevail to a
considerable extent, and which impressions alone constitute the staple
of this, and similar works. Its errors of inference, its misstatements of
facts, (to all appearance deliberate,) its various allegations of
inconsistency, and, above all, its gross and unwarrantable imputations, I must
leave you to deal with, as you think best.
We
live in an age not more remarkable for its progress in the arts of life, than
for its active spirit of inquiry in all matters whieh concern us as men;—a
spirit whieh takes nothing upon trust; and which promises to leave no subject
unexamined, whether of Science, Philosophy or Religion. By men of free minds,
and who love truth for its own sake, this spirit is hailed with
gladness;—while, on the other hand, by those who are the mere slaves of a
system, and who make its dogmas the tests of truth, it is regarded as an abomination
and a curse. Like the proud Assyrian, they have set up their image,—proclaimed
its Divinity,—and prepared the furnaee for all those who will not fall down and
worship.
The
world has but recently become acquainted with the fact that there exists
an organized Society or body of men, calling themselves members of The New Jerusalem Church,—or more
commonly The New Church. The
peculiar doctrines and opinions which they entertain, have led to many
extravagant and ridiculous accounts, made up and industriously circulated by
zealous individuals connected with the various religious sects in the country ;
and the public, imposed upon by them, have adopted the conclusion that they
are, at best, but a congregation of crazed enthusiasts. Even this equivocal
character is by no means universally accorded to them:—for some pious Divines
have convinced themselves, it would seem, and satisfied their respective
people, that their doctrines (if not their lives,) sanction some of the worst
of vices,—being directly opposed to the Holy Scriptures, and designed to
subvert the Christian Religion !
These
accounts, creditable as they are to the ingenuity of the propagators, have not,
however, prevented the slow but gradual increase and influence of the Church,
both in this country and in Europe. Its philosophical and religious views have
so successfully vindicated themselves against the assaults of their
opponents—and the progress of the Church has been so rapid, especially during
the last few years, that grave theologians have deemed it necessary of late no
longer to rely on the purile rhodomontade heretofore offered to the public, but
to approach the subject somewhat more soberly and seriously. Amongst these, I
suppose I must rank Dr. Pond—of whom I had never heard until you plaeed his book
in my hands. He seems to have made himself acquainted, at least, with the titles
of the volumes he reviews,—a faet whieh I do not remember to have observed in
the contributions of any of his predecessors;—and I readily admit that, if he
had made himself acquainted with their contents, I would not have
reasonably objected to his qualifications as a Reviewer—at least so far as
knowledge is concerned. But this he obviously has not done : and even as
regards titles, his catalogue of works “ attentively perused,” as
he says, contains in number, one more volume than was ever written. But of this
unfortunate slip I will say no more.
Most
of the vulgar errors whieh prevail in regard to the New Church, arise not only
from ignorance of its religious and psyehologieal system, but from an entire
misconception of the character and pretensions of the Chureh itself. Many
believe that it is the name of a new seet, asking to be admitted into
the congregation of the other sects of the Old Church. And as its
doctrines of Faith and Life do not fully accord with any of these, the whole
company rises up as one man, and each judging by his own particular test of
orthodoxy, the whole unite in reading it out with bell, book and eandle.
Now,
this is a gross misconception. The New Church does not pretend to be a sect
of the Old. It does not ask to be admitted into its pale, and refuses to
be tried by its rules of reason and tests of orthodoxy. It claims to be a
Chureh by itself, founded on that final and full revelation of truth promised
to man in the volume of the Divine Word. The Prophet Daniel declares—“ I saw
in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds
of heaven, and eame to the Aneient of Days, and they brought him near before
him. And there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people
and nations and languages should serve him :—his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom that whieh shall not be destroyed.” And John in the Apoealypse
says—“ And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the
first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I, John, saw the Holy
City, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared as a
bride adorned for her husband.”
In
these and many other passages of like import, both in the Old and New
Testament, it is believed that a New Church, founded on a clearer and
fuller revelation of Divine truth, is prefigured and promised to the world; and
that the Lord is now, in fulfilment of the prophecies and promises
contained in his Word, establishing on the earth a New Church —described by Daniel as “ a kingdom that shall
not be destroyed—and by John “ as the Holy City, New Jerusalem, coming down
from God out of Heaven.”
It
would require mueh more time than I have at command, to explain fully the
reasons on whieh this opinion is founded. This has been done by others; and he
who desires information may obtain it by consulting the works of the Church. I
must content myself by merely saying, First, that such an interpretation
as we here give to the words of prophecy, is not new ; but that it has
had able and pious advocates for ages past—and, Second, that the
evidences ot its truth and the proof of the faet, are based on
the internal or spiritual sense of the Holy Scriptures, as
revealed to and explained by E. SwedenborgFor it is a marked distinction of the
New Church, whieh obtains in all its views and doctrines—that the Divine Word,
or Holy Scriptures, contain throughout an internal or spiritual
sense, as well as a literal or external sense; and there is an exact
correspondence between them in every, the most minute particular; the latter
being as the natural body of a manwhile the former answers to the soul
or spirit which gives it life and power. Or, to take a higher and truer
illustration,—the external or literal sense is as the material
humanity- assumed by our Lord, while the internal or spiritual
sense, is as the Divinity itself: and as the Divine purified, glorified
and united itself to the Human, so the internal or spiritual
sense, illustrates, vivifies and conjoins itself with the external or literal
sense. And, further, as all the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily
; so all the fulness of the internal sense,—or the divine truth
itself, dwells, as it were bodily, in the external or literal
sense. To separate them would be, as it were, to separate the soul from the
body; and in view of this great and fundamental truth, the Lord himself taught
his disciples, in reference to the Holy Scriptures, that the letter alone
killeth—the spirit it is that giveth life.
The
literal sense of the Divine Word, being thus the continent, basis, or
body, as it were, of the spiritual sense, the New Church believes that it
is written from the beginning to the end,—in every word, jot, and tittle,
according to the exact, unchangablc, and everlasting relation or
correspondence which subsists between spiritual and natural things; between the
causes which exist in the spiritual world, and the effects
which subsist in the natural world, in all their wonderful varieties;
and that, in this respect, it is eminently distinguished from every merely
human production,—requiring no less than Infinite Wisdom to have dictated it.
Now
the whole system of the New Church is derived from, and based on the literal
sense of the Scriptures,—not separated from, but conjoined with, and
illustrated by, the spiritual sense ; and it thus differs Aholly and in
all its parts from the system of the Old Church:—the one deriving its doctrines
of Faith and Life from the internal sense of the Divine Word, as
contained in, conjoined with, and manifested by, the literal sense;—and
therefore an Internal Church ;—the other deriving its doctrines and
discipline from the literal sense separated from the spiritual,—and,
therefore, an External Church.
This
theory (if I must so express it,) of the New Church, in regard to the Holy
Scriptures, has subjected it to very many and severe animadversions on the
part of the theologians of the old church denominations. They cannot consent
that the Divine Word shall be interpreted in any other way than that which they
have adopted,—viz: according (to use their own language,) “ to its plain
literal import /’—although this rule be so indeterminate that, as all men
know, it has engendered more than a hundred different sects with almost as many
different interpretations. It wouldbc a task equally unpleasant and unprofitable
to pry into these common places of our assailants, and I pass them by without
special comment.
It
is most obvious that, unless there be in the Divine Word an interior and spiritual
sense, it is not a Divine but a human composition. It is not the Word of
the Divine Being, but the word of Moses, and others who were but imperfect
men. It is not the truth of the natural facts recorded in the literal sense,
that makes the Word Divine and Holy. Jt is something embodied in
these truths, something essentially divine which constitutes its
incomparable pre-eminence as the Word of
the Lord. If the mere truth of facts record- e 1 in an historical
series, entitle a work to the appellation of Holy or Divine, we
might, perhaps, admit to some partial participation in this distinction the
works of Herodotus, Thucidides, Livy, Tacitus, Josephus, and even Hume, Gibbon
and Voltaire. It must be most manifest to every enlightened understanding—to
every mind capable of thinking out of the harness of sectarian discipline, that
there is, in the Divine Word, a deep, mysterious and spiritual meaning
altogether distinct from the mere outward words of historical facts. Strange
that professing Christians should require to be told that the Books of the Holy
Scriptures are not the Words of Moses, Joshua, David, Isaiah, Matthew, and
others but the Word of the Lord 1
And yet such is the fact, for we read of Lectures delivered by learned Divines
of the Old Church, on what they are pleased to call “ Hebrew Poetry” —that
is the Psalms, the Prophets and other portions of the Divine Word!—in w’hich we
are told of the '‘flowing sweetness" of the one, the “bold
conceptions?’of the other, the “awful sublimity" of a third,
the “ affect ing plaintivencss” of a fourth, and the peculiar temper of
mind and feeling, and even the jn-ovincialisms and idiomatic phrases
of each and of all! !
That
the Divine Word contains a deep, mysterious, internal sense w’hich
constitutes its essential sanctity' and holiness, is no new opinion. It has
obtained in every age of the world and of the Church. It may be found, before the
Christian era, in the Misnah and Gemara, the Talmud and the Targums of the
Jews. Its vestiges may be traced even amongst heathen nations, in the theosophy
of the Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Hindoos, the Persians, the Greeks and the
Romans; for it is no novel or visionary hypothesis that all these drew their
respective systems of theology, however disfigured and distorted, from the same
common original. The evidences of this are many and conclusive; and I trust the
time is near at hand when some one, having the necessary leisure and learning,
may collect and lay them before the world.
The
same opinion prevailed in the earlier ages of the Christian Church, before the
traditions of the elders and the decrees of Councils had riveted their
shackles on the human mind. I might fill pages from the works of the ancient
Fathers in support of this assertion. Even in these latter days, in the
consummation of the Old Church, the impression is not entirely eradicated. Some
of the most eminent of the Protestant Church have ventured to assert the
opinions of the Primitive Fathers even at the risk of forfeiting an orthodox
reputation. One of these,! and perhaps the most learned of his age, if not of
any age since the revival of letters, in his Sermon before the British House of
Commons, uses the following emphatic language:
“
There is a caro and a spiritus, a flesh and a spirit, a body
and a soul in all the writings of the Scriptures. It is but the flesh
and body of Divine truth, that is printed upon paper; which many moths of books
and libraries do only feed upon ; many walking skeletons of knowledge, that
bury and entomb truths in the living sepulchres of their souls, do only
converse with; such as never did any thing else, but pick at the bark and rind
of truths, and crack the shells of them. But there is a soul and spirit
of Divine truths which could never yet be congealed into ink, that could never
be blotted upon paper ; which, by a secret traduction and conveyance, passeth
from one soul into another, being able to dwell and lodge no where, but in a spiritual
being, in a living thing, because itself is nothing but life and
spirit.”
Another,J
scarcely less distinguished for learning, in a discourse delivered before the
University of Oxford, July 25, 173G, commenting on the peculiar language in
which the Books of the Old Testament were written, observes :
When
the literal is cither impossible or absurd, the plainest words
are to be understood figuratively. In the original language it was
hardly possible to avoid figurative expressions : for with them the tongue is
a language of things rather than wards, and its very letters
are significant. It is net merely an arbitrary sound, but a real
character, and the name of every creature discovereth, in some
measure, the distinguishing property of its nature. AU nature
is its book, and its words are formed upon the essences of
things; and they had conveved their primeval knowledge to their posterity,
had they not rested in the -names, and forgot the things. Their wickedness
brought on their ignorance, and their ignorance their errors.”
This
view of the language of the Divine Word has received the suffrages of the most
learned oriental scholars ; and some have gone sofar as to attempt to trace out
the distinctive character and internal force and meaning of each particular
letter in the alphabet; whether with an approach to correctness or not, I shall
not undertake to decide—my object being rather to state general impressions,
than to pass judgment on particular hypotheses.
Admitting
that such an internal or spiritual sense exists in every part of the Holy Scriptures,
and that such may have been the common opinion of learned men in the past ages
of the Church, it will naturally be inquired, from what source do the members
of the New Church profess to derive their knowledge of it? We answer
frankly and promptly, from the disclosures of Emanuel Swedenborg; the medium,
or instrument, as we believe, through whom the Lord has been pleased to open to
his creatures these treasures of his Word, heretofore scaled up, in
order to the establishment on the earth of that “ Holy City" seen
by John, that “ Kingdom,” spoken of by Daniel, “ which shall not be
destroyed." This belief is not founded merely on the assurances of
Swedenborg himself—however highly he may be regarded as a man of piety, probity
and trulli—but on the internal testimonies furnished by the revelations
themselves—revelations that ask not the enforced assent exacted by personal
respect, need not the doubtful guaranties of personal veracity, but boldly
demand a trial on their own merits, requiring only that the Law and the
Prophets should be the witnesses, and impartial human Reason the Judge. We
believe, on investigation, they will be found to contain incontestable
evidences of their own truth,—a science, philosophy and religion which no
unaided human intellect could ever have fashioned into order out of the chaos
of its own thoughts, however great its powers, lofty its conceptions, or vast
its attainments.
It
is charged against the Church that its rule of interpretation, by which the
internal sense of the Word may be unveiled, is arbitrary in its nature, and
uncertain, if not inconsistent in its results. This allegation is made by
those whose prejudices have not allowed them to acquire any other than a very
partial knowledge of the rule itself,—much less of his nature, and the
principles which regulate and determine its application. So far from being
arbitrary in its nature, it must be (if taken as a rule at all,) as fixed and
unchangeable as the forms and qualities of the material world, on which it is
founded: nay, as firm and unchangeable as the laws of the Deity himself, whose
order and attributes are eternally stamped upon, and, as it were, stereotyped
in the forms of the visible creation,—themselves being (if I might so speak,)
the earthly alphabet of a heavenly language; teaching us that every created
form and substance, no matter in what order of life or being,—no matter in what
proportions of multitude or magnitude,—from the blind mole to the heavengazing
man,—from the animalcula to the mammoth,—from the separate sand-grain on the
sea-shore to the innumerable congregation of atoms that form a world, a system,
a universe; each and all are but the sensible manifestations of the infinite
attributes of the Most High, and speak, in an almost audible voice, that God
is all in all.
Without
the aid of this science of correspondence between natural and spiritual things,
it is believed by the Church impossible to determine, with certainty, whether
the writings received as the Holy Scriptures, are of Divine or human origin.
The want of this aid will account for the various conflicting opinions amongst
theologians, and contradictory decisions of Councils, in settling the Canon of
Scripture—if, indeed, it can be said to be settled at all—to say nothing of the
jeers and mockery of the scornful. It could not have been otherwise when men
looked to tradition and outward testimony for authority—confounding the letter
with the spirit—imputing the supposed imperfections of the text to
unauthorized interpolations, or to the personal imperfections of the respective
pensmen; and, in short, making it but little more than a mere account of the
Natural Creation, a history of the Jews, interspersed, occasionally, with moral
instructions, and predictions about Kings, and Tyrants, and Civil Governments,
and other earthly matters. Regarded merely in this gross and unworthy point of
view, it has required immense labor, on the part of good and learned men in
every age, to reconcile the world to its Divine authority : and had not a
merciful Providence ordained it otherwise,—had not deep voices been sometimes
heard in the dark sayings of the letter,—such as were once uttered from
the eloud that rested on Sinai; had it not been permitted to man, occasionally,
through openings in the garments of the literal sense, to catch a glimpse of
the glorious body of Divine Truth, it is more than probable that the sacred
Oracles would, long since, have been ranked amongst the ordinary impositions of
lying prophets and designing priests.
I
shall not stop to inquire into the mischiefs which have resulted to the world
from the want of some fixed and rational rule of interpretation, such as is
that for which we contend. The difficulty, not to say impossibility, of
reconciling the apparent contradictions which seem to disfigure the mere
literal sense; the seeming inconsistency, in many of its statements, with the
dictates of reason, the conclusions of philosophy, and the discoveries of
science, have led to schisms, convulsions and bloodshed : and Christendom, for
eighteen centuries, has staggered like a drunken man under the constantly
accumulating burden of creeds without concord, systems without order, and sects
without names to designate them. In the meantime, the torture, the faggot, and
the sword, have been active in this work; and the earth has drunk more blood
than would float the navies of the globe. The cause and the remedy of the
disease are equally obvious; but the time is not yet, though it be not distant,
when man will discover the one and apply the other. Meantime, the member of the
New Church has but to perform his duties faithfully and sincerely to God and to
man. The rest is with Him who sleeps not, neither is weary.
In
connection with this part of the subject a further inquiry may be anticipated,
viz: Docs the New Church regard the revelations of Swedenborg as of the
character and authority of the inspired Books of the Old and New Testament.’ I
answer, it is so certified and circulated by grave and revered persons in the
Old Church, but that there is not the slightest foundation for the opinion or
the charge. The mere idea is so bold as to border on blasphemy. The inspired
Books of the Old and New Testaments contain, in the view of the Church, the
Divine Truth itself. They were dictated in every word, from the beginning to
the end, by the Lord himself; and comprehend the treasures of infinite Love and
Wisdom. The persons selected to write them may, or may not have understood more
than their outward import. The probability is, that, to a considerable extent,
they were made acquainted with their general character, scope and design ; but
that they could have comprehended the full measure of the Divine Goodness and
Truth contained in them, is utterly incredible. Neither they nor any angel in
Heaven—no one but the infinite God himself can, of this, have any adequate
conception. A different theory would involve the worse than blasphemous paradox
that man is equal to God! In the very chapter of Daniel to which I have
referred, after recording what he had seen in the “ night visions”—these
correspondences in the spiritual world, presented to his contemplation in the
forms of the natural world—the Prophet speaks of being grieved in the spirit
and troubled on account of his visions, he asks for an interpretation (I am
speaking according to the literal sense of the Word), and an
interpretation is given him; but still clothed in the natural images of outward
things—veiled, as it were, in the vesture of earthly forms. And the Prophet, as
it would appear, still pondering and perplexed, utters the words of one who
feels the impotancc of his understanding—“ Hitherto is the end of the matter.
As for me, Daniel, my cogitations much troubled me, and my countenance changed
in me; but I kept the matter in my heart.” And in a subsequent chapter, when
the final consummation of the prophecies was presented before his vision, in
images that have stamped themselves so deeply on the human understanding for so
many ages; when he had seen the man clothed in linen lift up his right hand and
his left hand unto heaven, and heard him “ Sware by Him thatliveth forever”
when “ all these things shall be finished,” he says—“Andlheard, but I
understood not; then said I, 0 my Lord, what' shall be the end of these things
? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel, for the words an closed up and sealed
till the time of the end.”
I
might prosecute this inquiry further if it were at all relevant to the subject:
but it is not, and I wish to avoid all extraneous matter. My object is merely
to present the views of the Church in respect to the Divine Word; and from
these views themselves to show that, in its estimation, no record whatever,
that ever has been or that ever can be written, though arch-angels were the
pensmen, and the curtains of heaven the scroll—can be compared in any manner,
or in any degree, with the Word of the
Lord. I make no other reply to the assaults of reckless men, whose
charges reflect far darker shadows on themselves than on the Church against
which they are made.
To
the impartial mind it will appear manifest, from what I have said, that the NewChurch
cannot rank the disclosures of Swedenborg with the books of the inspired
volume. What it claims for them and for him, is nothing more than what it
accords, in degree, to every truthful composition, and to every man who
thinks and acts in the w-orld. I say, in degree ; for we believe that,
in one sense, all men may be regarded as inspired; that is to say, that all men
receive their knowledge of truth, their love of goodness, their thoughts and
affections, their life and being, from the Lord. If they distinguish between
the good and the evil; between the true and the false; if they will, and
understand, and act, though all appears to be from themselves, yet all is from
the Lord alone ; for they are merely recipients of these affections and
faculties. In tlris sense, therefore, and in this degree, all men may be
considered as inspired. Each feels, thinks and acts as from himself, and
differently from another:—for in this consists his substantive individuality
of being. One has a deeper and a stronger current of feeling; a wider and a
clearer range of vision ; a higher and a larger sphere of action, than another:
yet each, and all, are but instruments still—mere recipients, whose very
existence, and all that it implies, is momentarily received from the Lord of
Life.
As
to the revelations of Swedenborg, they may be regarded, in respect to the
Divine Word, as the discovery of a mine of gold to the gold itself; or as the
opening of a casket of precious stones to the jewels contained within it. He
professes to have been enlightened by the Lord,—not to publish any divine
truth, heretofore unwritten—but to explain that already written, but not
understood. His revelations, therefore, are not a “New Gospel,” as some weak and wrathful sectaries would have
the world to believe, but a discovery or disclosure of the internal truths
contained in the Word of the Lord as it is written. His illumination was
designed for this especial purpose. Not to alter, amend, add to, take from, or
substitute aught in the place of what is written ; but simply, to explain,
fully, clearly, and to the comprehension of human reason, that which is written
; so far, at least, as the object of his asserted mission required, or the
capacity of the human mind may be qualified, at present, to receive. This is
the light in which his revelations are regarded. No one presumes to place them
on an equality with the Divine Word. Bezaleel may build the tabernacle, Aaron
may minister at its altars, but the Lord alone is God, in the pillar of cloud
and in the pillar of fire, in the ark and from between the cherubim.
It
is not denied that the members of the New Church believe the disclosures of
Swedenborg to be true ; but vast is the difference between such a
belief, and the conclusion that they are as the Word of the Lord. Newton
elucidated and established, if he did not discover, the theory of gravitation
; yet his demonstrations, though they carry the authority of visions, cannot be
confounded with the truths themselves which they unfolded, explained, and
confirmed. The like may be said of all the systems of mental and mathematical
science : and in spiritual matters it is the every-day’s practice of ministers
and teachers to declare and elucidate the truths of the Divine Word ; this is
the very design and end of their office; yet their sermons, homilies,
commentaries, and conclusions, though admitted to be true by their
respective sects, are not, on that account, or, at least, should not be, ranked
in authority with the Word itself. And why should the New Church be taxed with
an offence darker than that of mere impiety, simply because it believes the
revelations of Swedenborg to be true ?
It
may be said, in reply, that Swedenborg presumes to declare that he was actually
enlightened by the Lord himself, and instructed to make those disclosures,—a
presumption, -of which other theologians of this age are not guilty.
But, thisj does not change the state of the question. His revelations are
neither false nor true, merely because he says that he was enlightened
and directed to make them. Their truth or falsehood must rest on other and far
different grounds, as every man of common sense must perceive. The doctrines of
Luther and Calvin are believed by their respective disciples to be true; and
that they, by the providence of the Lord, were the selected instruments to
shake the Papal hierarchy, and set in motion the ball of the Reformation.
Should it now be discovered, from some old illuminated manuscript (and the
fact is actually asserted in regard to one), that they had visions of heavenly
things, and that the Lord himself did call them to this high office—admitting
this fact to be asserted on their own authority (as it is said to be in the
case of Luther), would the doctrines they taught become, as instanter,
false and impious; or would their followers believe them to be so? And
yet this is the very test they would apply to the disclosures of Swedenborg I
But
it is argued that, as Swedenborg professes to have had his spiritual vision
opened— to have been prepared and permitted to see and converse with angels and
spirits, in order that the world might be made acquainted with the realities of
a future life,—he must have been mad ; for, as it is contended,
although the merciful God has, in past ages, vouchsafed, through his
infinite love, to fallen man, to reveal himself to the patriarchs, prophets,
and apostles, yet, in this present age, whatever may be the dead and
dying condition of his creatures, either from some change in his love
towards them, he will not, or from some defect of power in
himself, he cannot, make any such revelations of himself. Therefore, he
who asserts the contrary, is mad, and his doctrines inevitably false.
This,
I confess, is a very summary, if not a very satisfactory, mode of settling the
question. It is not, however, a new one ; nor is Swedenborg the first or the
highest subject of its application, as I might very readily show; but other
points of more importance present themselves for examination ; and as this
fond theory of our adversaries seems to have been a six-days’ labor, I
willingly leave them and those who are satisfied with its arguments, to enjoy,
in quiet, the sabbath of its conclusion.
Having
thus stated what is meant by the New Church, and given a general view of the
grounds on which it is established, I will now proceed to state some of the
leading articles of its Faith. This may be done in a very few words ; for I
propose only to mention what are commonly called the universals of its
faith ; that is to say, the general, more prominent, and distinctive
doctrines of the Church.
First.
We believe that there is but one only
God; one in essence, one in person, and one
in operation.
Second.
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ
is that one only God ; the
Creator, the Redeemer, and the Regenerator of all men.
Third.
We believe that, in the Lord Jesus Christ (as the very terms import,)
there is a Trinity, called the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit ; and that, as He was the only Lord before the
incarnation, so He is now, and ever shall be ; as, in his person—his
glorified humanity—“ dwelleth,”
as the apostle declares, “ all the
fulness of the Godhead BODILY.”
Fourth.
We believe that all men, since the fall, are born into an hereditary principle
of evil; and that they must be regenerated, or perish : that this is effected
by shunning all evils, as sins against God, and by living a new life according
to the precepts of the Decalogue: man acknowledging that, while he docs this as
of himself, the power is received from the Lord alone.
These
may be called the general and distinctive doctrines of the New Church; and
every sensible man will at once perceive that they are not calculated to win
the favor of the various conflicting yet orthodox denominations of the
Old Church—a Church which, in our view of the Scriptures, is consummated and
come to its end, like the Jewish Church that preceded it; and for reasons
which, if not precisely, are yet substantially the same. They repudiate, in the
first place, that sub-division of the Deity—that Tritheism, in fact,
which has been, and is now, the fatal source of all its errors of doctrine,
both as to Faith and Life ; and which, confessedly, never had, and has not now,
any stronger support than that of Mystery.
In the second place, they repudiate the idea of a vicarious atonement as
a contradictious conception, inconsistent with itself, with reason, and
revelation. And, in the third place, they repudiate altogether that numerous
family of heady and mischievous errors propagated from this parent stock, and
fostered with so much care and concern by the various denominations of the Old
Church—such as justification by faith alone— salvation by imputed
righteousness—unconditional predestination and election—and many others of
the same complexion, in degrees of descent more or less remote. It is, therefore,
not surprising that the New Church should be the subject of so many acrimonious
comments and libellous misrepresentations.
I
have alluded to the Trithcism of the Old Church as the origin of its
errors. I say this in no spirit of recrimination, but from a deep conviction of
its truth. I know that, in words, three Gods are not allowed to be
written down in the creeds; but I deal with ideas, not with words ;
with the substance, not with the shadow. They teach, that in the
Godhead there are three separate,
distinct persons—each, by
himself, being Lord and God; each having a separate and distinct office
or function ; each, in himself, infinite and eternal; and only not
three Gods, because each is of the same substance of the other.
The identity of the substance alone, prevents them from being, in all
respects, three Gods ! And yet
this same substance, which alone preserves the unity of the Godhead, and
which is, in itself, eternal, infinite, and indivisible, did not prevent but
that one of the three Persons should assume the human nature—the
other two Persons, in the mean time, being not, and never having been, incarnate
! Incredible labor and a vast amount of learning have been exhausted in the
effort to prove the truth and reasonableness of this cardinal
tenet of orthodoxy ; and the result has been, so far as my reading extends,
that it is a great Mystery ; a
conclusion which, I humbly conceive, requires no more than the mere statement
of the proposition, to establish—if, indeed, the term mystery be the one
most proper to be used: and as a matter of Faith, I can conceive of no better
grounds of assent than that offered by Tertullian—Credo quia impossibile
est.
As
regards the distinct offices or functions of the several persons of the
Godhead, according to the tri-personal theory, the creeds, the liturgies, and
the daily prayers of the Church, will show that I have not stated the case too
strongly. The Father, being the Creator, pardons and condemns ; the Son, being
the Redeemer, mediates and intercedes ; and the Holy Spirit, being the
Regenerator, enlightens and sanctifies. Men are, therefore, moved to repentance
and to prayer by the third Person.
These prayers are presented and enforced by the second
Person, who intercedes, and, in some cases, prevails with the first Person, to grant a remission of
sins to the penitent—not, indeed, on account of the repentance, or the prayers,
or any other act of the Penitent,
but solely on account of the merits of the Intercessor,
whose infinite righteousness, or so much thereof as may be needful, is,
in such cases, imputed to the penitent.
Such,
in general terms, is the doctrine of the Trinity—or, as it. should
rather and more properly be called, the Tri-personality ; such the
scheme of redemption and salvation, as it is understood and taught by the Old
Church.
On
the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity as understood and taught by the New
Church, discards the idea of three distinct Persons with three
distinct Offices, as necessarily implying three distinct Gods,
however the proposition may be worded ; and on this account, we are charged
with the errors of Unitarianism—a name which designates one of the most
respectable of the many sects of the Old Church, but whose fundamental doctrine
is, in *n eminent degree, opposed to that of the New. The error
arises from disregarding the force, and confounding the meaning, of words; and
proceeds upon the postulate that a Trinity can only exist in three distinct
persons; a delusion, than which nothing can be more gross and palpable, as
I shall presently show ; for I would dwell a moment longer on this charge: not
that I regard it as of sufficient importance to require refutation, but for
another reason. The very allegation itself, if I mistake not, is pregnant with
an argument and a conclusion which it was not designed to suggest, urge, or
establish ; and I respectfully solicit the attention of Dr. Pond and his
coadjutors.
The
Unitarian Faith I believe admits the existence of one only God. This, if
we are to trust to the words, and not to the ideas, of the
orthodox systems, constitutes, of itself, no valid objection, since in words
they also declare the same. But, the Unitarian Faith goes further, and
expressly rejects and denies the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ; and this
justly excludes the system and its disciples from the number of what are called
Christian Churches. It is not the assertion of one
only God, but the denial of the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ,
that subjects them to the ostracism of the orthodox denominations.
How
then stands the question as between them ? The Unitarian acknowledges one only God; which, according to the
faith of the orthodox, (in wends) is very well: but, he denies the
Divinity of the Lord, the Saviour ; and, therefore, stands
excommunicate. Hence, it would seem, that the acknowledgement of the Divinity
of the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the orthodox faith, must be made, together
with the acknowledgement of one only God
: and, therefore, Ue must be that one
only God, or there is some other ; or the Unitarian must be an Atheist—which
cannot be, if he really believes in one God.
But,
the argument contained in the objection will appear more manifest when viewed
in another light.
The
Unitarian is placed without the pale of “ covenanted mercy” (for such
are the terms of modified condemnation, mercifully allowed by the orthodox “ Evangelical
Churches”), because, though he admits there is one only God, the Father, and Creator of all things, he
denies the Divinity of the Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. The New
Churchman, on the other hand, not only acknowledges that there is but one only true God (and in this both are
correct, according to the words of the orthodox creeds), but goes
further, and asserts that the Lord Jesus Christ was a Divine Person ; and
more—that he was, and is, that one only
true God—all the fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily. And
yet, strange to tell, the faith of the two is said to be identical, by,
what are called, learned Professors; and both arc excluded, unceremoniously,
from the catalogue of Christian Churches. One would suppose, that the
New Church, which regards the Lord Jesus Christ as the impersonation of the
Holy Trinity—the “ Three that bare record in heaven and in whom,
therefore, “ dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” is eminently entitled
to be called a Christian Church ; but it has been decided otherwise by
those who, if they have not introduced three distinct Gods into the Christian
system, have employed words which either mean nothing, or contradict
themselves. At all events, according to their system, it is far more important
to believe in the Tri-pcrsonality of the Godhead, than in the Trinity
; as it is far more rational and scriptural to believe that one God
should dwell in three substantive and distinct Persons, than in one
Person: and when the Lord “ breathed on his disciples, and said, Receive
ye the Holy Ghost,” it is far more consonant to the dictates of human
reason, and the ordinary import of language, to suppose he breathed a person upon them, than that he
communicated his Divine Spirit and operation.
I
have said that, to suppose it impossible a Trinity could exist except in the
three distinct persons, is a gross and palpable error. The delusion
arises from confounding the words themselves. The terms are not the same, nor
are the ideas the same. On the contrary, they may be regarded, philologically
and philosophically, as not only distinct, but actually opposite. A trinity
is an essential constituent of, and necessarily present in, every unity.
An effect might as soon exist without a moving and an instrumental eause, as unity
without a trinity. On the other hand, the term tri-personality
implies something separate, distinct, disjunctive. Each individual man has a
soul, a body, and a life, power or operation, proceeding from the soul and the
body, whieh constitutes him a substantive, distinct, individual person,
man, or being. His soul is not his body; nor his body, his soul; nor his life,
aetion, power, or operation, either the one or the other. The three are
distinct in perception and in fact; yet they are absolutely essential to make
up that one individual unit ealled man. They are not three distinct
persons, but they constitute one
distinct person. And if there be three
persons in the Godhead, eaeh person must have a trinity in
Himself. End, cause, and effect (to use the language of the Schoolmen,) are,
in idea and in faet, three distinct things ; for the end is not
the eause, nor is the cause the effect; yet they
necessarily exist and subsist as a unit in every substance, animate or
inanimate. The universe itself, in the whole and in all its parts, thus
reflects, as a mirror, the Great Being who created, formed, and established it.
The Divine Word teaehes us that “ God is
Love ;” and we speak of His infinite Wisdom
and almighty Power ; though few of
us, it is to be feared, take any pains to inquire what is meant by Love, Wisdom, and Power, when applied to the Deity. They
are words of common use, and for the most part, convey but common conceptions ;
yet Divine Love, Divine Wisdom and Divine Power, are in themselves essentially
God, and constitute that ineffable and incomprehensible substance, form, and
influence, whieh we eall GOD; from whom proceeds all life, light, and being.
St. John says, “ In the beginning was the
Word (the Divine Truth or Wisdom), and the Word was with God (the Divine Love—for “God is Love”), and God was the Word;’’ for the Divine Love exists in the Divine Wisdom; and the Divine Wisdom exists from the Divine Love ; and the Divine Power proceeds from the Divine Love, through the Divine Wisdom: as He who was the Logos,
the Word, himself taught his
disciples after he was “ made flesh ;” declaring, “ I am in the Father,
and the Father in me—I and my Father are one—He who hath seen me, hath
seen the Father— All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Love,
Wisdom, and Power, or operation proceeding, may, in idea, be
distinct; but they are essentially a unit,and make one Person ; as soul, body, and operation, make one man. In
this respeet man is eminently an image and likeness of his
Creator.
We
believe, therefore, that the Word,
the Wisdom, the Divine Logos, spoken of in John, as
being from the beginning with God, and being God, and in whom was the Divine Love, or the Father,
assumed the nature of man, or became incarnate; and that, therefore, according
to the annunciation of the angel to Mary, “ that Holy Thing which should be born of her, should
be called The Son ok God.” Now,
what was that “ Holy Thing” whieh
was born of Mary ? Surely not the Divine, but the Human ; for besides the gross absurdity
apparent on the faee of the proposition, that an Infinite could have been born of a finite ; or that a creature
eould bring into form and being, its own Creator ; it is now generally admitted, that that
whieh was born of Mary, was, in itself, imperfect, capable of temptation, of
suffering, and of death. This, then, in itself, could not have been the Word, the Locos, which was, in the
beginning, with God, and was God; but it was that which “should
be ealled;” and was ealled, “the Son
of God;” because it was the mysterious, ineffable, and “ holy Thing,”
produced in the womb of the Virgin, by the incomprehensible power of the Holy
Spirit, or creative energy of the Lord, which is said to have “ overshadowed
her.” The orthodox disciples of the “ Tripersonal theory,
disregarding the express declaration of Scripture, that this “ holy Thing which
should be born,” and which was, undoubtedly, created in time,
and, before its final glorification and union with the Divinity, undoubtedly
subject to trial, pain, and death itself—I say, disregarding the declaration,
that this “ holy Thing” should be called “ the Son of God,” most strangely maintain, that “ the Son of God ” was, from the
beginning, a distinct person in Himself—" the Word of the Father, begotten,
from everlasting, of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one
substance with the Father thus, in my humble opinion, departing, at one
and the same time, from the plain instructions of the Divine Word—discarding
all the precepts of enlightened reason—confounding the very nature of
things—and introducing into the bosom of the Church a plurality of gods,
not less pernicious than paradoxical.
The
theology of the New Church as to the Holy Trinity, in discarding entirely the plural
or tri-theistical system, strikes a front if not a fatal blow at the
principal and most cherished inventions of the Old Church generally, and of its
more orthodox denominations in particular. It enters into no truce with a
system of arbitrary and absurdly-constructed mysteries, demanding the absolute
submission of reason to its incomprehensible dogmas. It denies that there are three
or more Persons in one God—that there was a Son of God, “ begotten from everlasting,” or “
born from eternity” (words that involve an obvious solecism, and imply a
paradox as gross as could be uttered in human language,)—that this Son, being a
different person from the Father, assumed the flesh, and suffered on the
cross inorder to appease the wrath of that Father, and to satisfy the demands
of infinite justice— that, by these sufferings, he atoned for the sins of all
mankind, past, present, and to come— that he was thus a vicar of the
Father, and his atonement a vicarious atonement—and that men are
justified by faith alone in Him, and thus saved—His righteousness being imputed
to them for that purpose.
In
opposition to these solemn, and, as we believe, soul-destroying delusions, the
New Church teaches that the Lord Himself, being one in Essence
and one in Person, in whom there is a Divine Trinity, assumed the
human nature, in order to save those who are human ; that he was in Christ, “ reconciling,”
as the Apostle saith, “ the would to
Himself;” that, in this nature, He redeemed mankind, that is, delivered
them from the powers of hell, and taught them that, if they would be saved,
they must repent, and forsake all evil, as sins against God, by keeping the
commandments as the sacred rules of life ; and thus by living as those
who realize, in the very depths of their souls, the certain and solemn truth,
that every man shall be judged hereafter, “ according to his works, whether
they be good or whether they be evil.”
1
should have been willing to allow the two systems to stand thus, front to
front, without a solitary word of comment, had the human mind been allowed to
retain its native and God-given freedom ; but it has been enslaved by education
and fixed habitudes of thought; and therefore I feel neither surprise nor
anger, when we are bitterly assailed, or recklessly piisrepresented. This
must needs be so, if the doctunes of the Church be true. Never yet has Truth,
in the beginning, met with any other reception. Even the Almighty God, who was the Truth itself manifest in the
flesh—though he came to his own, yet his own received him not—no, not even in
the very Temple which for centuries had stood the type of his body, and whose
altars had taught the mysteries of his blood—He was persecuted, reviled,
mocked, scoffed at, rejected, and crucified by the Clergy,—the Priests
and Rulers of the Church,—who pretended to be the exclusive interpreters of His
Word, and the sole heirs of its promises. If this were so at His first advent,
when He was present in the flesh, and they saw His wondrous works, we may well
repeat the pregnant question of the Lord Himself in reference to His second
advent, when he would appear not in the flesh, but in the Spirit—not
in the literal, but in the internal sense of the Word: “ When
the Son of Man comcth, shall he find faith on the earth ?”
It
is clear, from what we daily see, that, unless He should come in the manner
and form which have been settled and determined by their interpretations
of the Prophecies, the Old Church Clergy, like that of the Jewish, can never
believe in a second advent. This interpretation is precisely the same
with that adopted by the Jewish Doctors at His first advent, and the
consequences arc precisely the same. They are both waiting and expecting, the
one for the/rst, the other for the second, advent; and they will wait and
expectin vain. They cannot give up their cherished interpretations. It
requires too great a sacrifice of self. Spiritual pride, founded on
self-derived intelligence is of all affections, the most obstinate and
untcachable. All rules of reason, all precept of common sense, must yield to
it. If farce cannot be used, frawl must supply its place. Hence
the artful appeals to popular prejudices—the mockery, derision, and
misrepresentation, which v^e daily see and hear in regard to the New Church and
its doctrines of Faith and Life.
We
have just ground of complaint-—not that the views and doctrines ot the Church
are freely examined and freely condemned, when considered erroneous ; but that
men, through ignorance or design, should contract a fraudulent system of their
own, impute it to the Church, then expose and denounce it; and, in the full
flush of triumph, in this contest with shadows, exultingly exclaim (as some of
the most zealous have done), “ We claim the victory It is very apparent
to the members of the Church, that but few of those who have written most, have
ever read more than one or two detached volumes ;”or the “ Memorable
Relations” interpersed, by Swedenborg, in the body of some of his larger
works.
These
Memorable Relations contain an account of what Swedenborg professes to have
seen and heard in the spiritual world : and I readily admit if that world be, in
any respect as the orthodox systems represent it to be, the account must
needs appear equally strange and incredible. But this previous question has to
be decided, before the conditional admission can be fairly used against us. As
to the “ marvels’’ recorded in them, they consist principally in
descriptions of the life, conduct and conversation of those who inhabit it; and
who are represented as men—men with spiritual bodies, and all the affections
and faculties appertaining to real existence and rational life.
This, I confess, must appear strange to those who believe that the dead have no
organic substance or form, and therefore no will, understanding, appetite,
sense or power of motion ; but that they are certain volatile idealities or thinking
entities ; and that so they have been from the beginning of creation, and so
they must be until the final destruction of the heavens and the earth, when
they will again become sensible and perceptible beings, by the reassumption of
the very bodies they have so long left behind them in the bowels of the earth.
It is on account of this prcconcieved and fixed notion, 1 presume, that the relations
of Swedenborg appear so mad and marvellous; and not so much on account of the
details themselves which he gives. These have, indeed, subjected him and the
Church to indignation, scorn and ridicule ; inasmuch as he has, unfortunately
for his popularity as a Seer, represented some of the most orthodox and
learned divines, and even the founders of sects and Churches in this world,
as in no very high or happy pre-eminence in that.
But
I pass by these personal matters, as not worth my special consideration.
Swedenborg’s
Memorable Relations, and, indeed, all his theological works, assume that his
spiritual vision was opened; and that he did actually see and converse with
angels and spirits. From his statements we learn that the spiritual world is a
world of causes, and the natural world a world of effects,
universally and singularly. We learn, also, as a consequence of this, that
appearances in the spiritual world correspond with the things of this world, in
every, the most minute, particular. This might be spoken of more at large, but
1 wish only to draw attention to the subject generally, in order that the fact
of such a correspondence actually existing between the two worlds, may not be
overlooked. In the spiritual world, for example, love, in all its degrees, is felt
as heat, and light is perceived as wisdom or truth, and henep, in this
world, heat corresponds.to love and light to wisdom. And, in general, all the
forms of the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms in this world have their
respective anti-types in the spiritual world, which appear there in the
same infinite variety, as correspondences of the spiritual affections and
thoughts of its inhabitants. Many misconceptions and misrepresentations of
Swedenborg and of the Church might have been avoided, had this leading truth
been comprehended and kept in view. He would not in such case have been
represented as giving immortality to brutes, and peopling the spiritual world
with “gorgons, hydras and chimeras, dire.” The shafts of grave sportsmen might
also have been spared for more useful purposes. Will they shoot their arrows,
or vent their scoff1, at similar revelations made by the Prophets
and Evangelists, who are admitted to have had their spiritual visions opened?
St. John declares he saw, when in the spirit,—that is in the spiritual
world,—vast multitudes of those who had lived on the earth, besides, serpents,
dragons, horses, locusts, frogs, scorpions, mountains, rivers, plains, trees
and many other forms of natural objects. Will orthodox divines sneer at
this ? Daniel says, ch. vii. that “ in visions of his head” he saw “ four great
beasts that came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like
a lion, and had eagle’s wings; I beheld till the wings thereof were plueked,
and it was lifted up from the earth and made stand upon its feet like a man,
and a man’s heart was given to it. And behold another beast like a bear, and it
raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it, between
the teeth of it: and they said unto it, Arise, eat much flesh. After this, I
beheld, and lo, another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four
wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to
it. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast,
dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it
devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and
it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I
considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little
horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots;
and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking
great things.”
Again,
in chapter viii. the same Prophet in a vision by the river of Ulai: “ A
ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high ; but one was higher than
the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and
northward and south; so that no beast might stand before him ; but he did
according to his will and became great. And as I was considering,
behold, a hc-goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and
touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his
eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing
before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come
close unto the ram, and he was mad with choler against him, and smote the ram
and brake his two horns ; and there was no power in the ram to stand hefore
him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was
none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. Therefore the he-goat waxed
very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken : and for it came
four notable ones towards the four winds of heaven. And out of one of
them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great towards the
south, and towards the east, and towards the pleasant land.
And it waxed great even to the host of heaven ; and it cast
dawn some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped
upon them,'’ &c.
Now
these relations in the mere literal sense, separate from the spiritual,
obviously contain no meaning and convey no instruction worthy of the holiness
and dignity of the Divine Word; but they are written according to the science
of correspondence, as in every other portion of the Holy Scriptures, and the
natural objects here described are correspondences of spiritual things. They
were seen in the spiritual world by the prophet; for he, at the same time,
speaks of seeing saints, and “ the appearance of a man,” at whose
command
Gabriel
was sent to him to interpret the vision. But even in this interpretation the
angel still uses thelanguage of representatives, in which were contained
the true internal sense ; and which, even after the interpretation,
seems not to have been understood by the prophet; or, at least, he was directed
“ to shut up the vision,” which, therefore, could not have been fully explained,
as to its true internal or spiritual sense.
Now,
I would inquire of our most prejudiced adversaries whether they can point to
any relation of Swedenborg, which, judging both by the same rule,
appears more extraordinary (for I will not allow myself to use such
terms as are employed in their “ Examinations” and “ Reviews,)
than these ? Will they charge the prophet with “ peopling the spiritual world
with rams and he-goafs, whose horns have eyes and feet, and whose
power casts down the stars of Heaven or will they say he is mad, or hath
a devil I No, they will not: but it is for other reasons than those which
their systems offer, or their judgments approve. They dare not do it ! And it is well; for when the rabble of
our rebellious passions are raised and civil wars rage within us, Fear
is wisely permitted to usurp the throne of Reason—though the reins of
government be held with trembling hands.
Swedenborg,
as I have observed, declares that his spiritual vision was opened, and that,
f^r nearly thirty years, the privilege was thus vouchsafed to him, of seeing,
and conversing with spirits and angels’; that, in this manner, he became
acquainted with many extraordinary phenomena which exist in that world,
explaining the philosophy, and describing the realities of a future life.
Amongst other disclosures, he gives us some accounts of the character and
condition of the inhabitants of the planets and of other earths in the starry
heavens ; derived from the spirits of those who once dwelt on them, and
with whom he held converse in the world of spirits, or that intermediate
place or state, in which all men come immediately after death. These
disclosures, which, in the present condition of our faith and knowledge, are
admitted to be extraordinary, and which must to most minds, appear utterly
incredible, are usually collected together by our adversaries, and without any
preliminary exposition of our principles, theological or philosophical, upon
which the Church rests their reasonableness and credibility, placed in the
front of their “ Statements,”
“Examinations” and “Reviews;”
for the apparent purpose of exciting the passions and prejudices of the
reader—the certain means of disabling his judgment, while, at the same time,
they profess their motive to be just, their means fair, and their object only
the discovery of truth ! This is a weakness totally unworthy of a being so
endowed and distinguished as man.
I
propose to adopt a different course in my effort to ascertain the truth;
and for this reason desire that passion and prejudice may be driven out of
court, and that reason alone— calm, unbiased reason, may sit in judgment on the
cause.
It
is proper to keep constantly in mind that the new Church is not, and does not
profess to be, one of the numerous sects or schisms of what is called the old
Church, comprehending both Catholics and Protestants, with all their
multitudinous subdivisions. It professes to be a new Church, founded on
a new view of the Divine Word, and containing new principles of
philosophy, new doctrines of faith, and new doctrines of life. It
can no more be regarded as a sector subdivision of the old or first Christian
Church, than this can be regarded as a sect or subdivision of the previous
Jewish or Israelitish Church. Each was founded by the Lord on a distinct
dispensation or rather revelation of Divine Truth. This asserted fact
must be borne in mind.
The
prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, and, indeed, the whole Word of the
Lotd, are, as I have before stated, written by one unvarying and invariable
rule. The natural signs and images in which it is worded and
presented to our minds, are, as we believe, correspondences and representations,
which clothe, as it were, the internal, spiritual and Divine truths
contained within them. These truths have been more or less partially- revealed
at different periods of human history; just as men became more or less prepared
and qualified to receive them. From the Jewish Church, which was eminently external,
they were almost entirely hidden; and for this reason their construction or
interpretation was strictly literal; and, guided by this rule only, they
fell into the most grevious errors of doctrine and of life; denied, rejected
and crucified their own Messiah, unknowing what they did, because he had not,
and did not come, according to the literal sense of the Word,
throughout the law and the prophets, to rebuild the waste places of Jerusalem,
and re-establish their civil and ecclesiastical polity. Their Church, in the true
and proper signification of a Church, though it still outwardly exist, has
long since come to its end and passed away.
At
the first advent of the Lord a fuller revelation was made of the Divine truths
contained in the Word to the Church which was then established by Him in place
of that which had stood for so many ages, but which then came to its final
consummation; but that the Book of the Law and the Prophets were entirely
unsealed to that Church, is not only not taught, but expressly denied in almost
every chapter of the New Testament—denied by the words of the Apostles
themselves, and denied by the whole history of the Church, past and present.
The unnumbered controversies were from the very times of the Apostles down to
our own—controversies as towhat even its literal sense taught, we have
no rational doubt of the fact. To that Church, indeed, it was given to perceive
manj truths that were hidden from the Jewish Church. It saw the error of
interpreting the words of prophecy, “ according to their plain and literal
meaning'’ (though such be the rule it now recommends)—that the Jerusalem
which was to be rebuilt, the Kingdom which was to be re-established,
was not of this world. These and many other similar truths, suited to the then
state of mankind, were revealed to it: but itsrevclations were still clothed in
parables; the “ visions of the Prophet were still shut up,” and its own
history and final consummation shadowed forth in dark and fearful images, which
we solemnly believe have now no reference to the fut vre.
The
New Church then must not be
confounded with any of the various sects and schisms of the old. It claims to
be its successor, not its offspring—a tree planted by itself, and nourished by
the pure river of the water of life—not a sickly scion springing from a decayed
root, or splinter riven from a blasted trunk, shaken by the storms, and
shivered by the lightnings of its own heavens.
It
is urged against the Church that its doctrines and views are new, strange,
wild, visionary, mystical and mad: but he who is seriously inquiring after
truth for its own sake should not be surprised at, or directed from his pursuit
by such imputations. If the Church be that spoken of and promised in the
Apocalypse, its doctrines and views must needs be new, and, to the
members of the old systems, strange, heretical and delirious. This must be
expected ; for the words of Prophecy assures us of it. So great, so radical was
to be the change that, as the old, in the lofty language of correspondence, is
represented by St. John, as the former heaven and the former earth
thatjtassed away, so the New Church is described as the new heaven and
the new eaith, which succeeded it. And immediately after the descent of
the Holy City, New Jerusalem, and the tabernacle of God is proclaimed to be
with men,—“ He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all
things new.” The world must, therefore, expect to hear of new
views—new views of the Lord, and of his nature and of his providence—new
views of the Divine Word, its character, power and holiness—new views of
Heaven and of Hell, and a life after death—new views of man, his nature,
mode of existence and future destiny—in short, new views of all things
appertaining to the creations of God. Without these how could it be the Church
spoken of when all things were to be made new ? How could it be suited
to the great change indicated by the New Heavens and the New Earth I
How could these promised improvements in the natural, moral and spiritual
codition of mankind be effected so great, so signal, that good men, in the
present and the past ages, sincerely believed that they implied the total
destruction of the visible Heavens and Earth, a
new creation and the actual presence of the Lord himself in person to reign
amongst us ? .
We
must not, therefore, be startled when told that new doctrines are
taught; and stiange because new. But because they are new
and strange, must they, therefore, be false, or fantastic, or mad ?
Does such a conclusion comport with the dignity of human reason or the lessons
of human experience ? The man who affirms it is himself mad, or ha« lived to
very little purpose.
There
are no views contained in the disclosures of Swedenborg more remarkable for
their novelty (our adversaries use the word “ absurdity”) than
those which relate to the spiritual world, and the state, conduct, and
conversation of its inhabitants. These are, therefore, usually placed in front
to prove his madness, and thus to avoid the trouble of any other or
further examination. Let us, therefore, examine his reasons without prejudice,
as men who are seeking to discover truth—not to support or overthrow theories.
The
enlightened mind will readily perceive that the subject naturally divides
itself into two distinct parts: First ; Is man, by creation,
endowed with the capacity of seeing objects in the spiritual world, and of
conversing with the spirits of the departed ? Second ; Is it consistent
with the order of the Divine Providence that this capacity should ever be
exercised or brought into action during man’s natural life in this world ?
First,
then, as to the question of capacity ; and this might be decided at once
by reference to the certain declarations of truth, and the indisputable
testimony of facts contained in the Divine Word. But as a mere outward
assent, arising from reluctant reasons by appeals to arbitrary authority, can
neither make any permanent impression, nor exercise any permanent influence on
the human understanding, I would first present some general views of human psychology,
as taught in the New Church: for when effects are seen and understood
from their causes, then Reason may act in freedom ; its assent is no
longer inferred; its conclusions are based on its own clear perceptions—faith
becomes knowledge, and knowledge the rule of life.
I
have already observed that the natural world was made the continent
and basis of the spiritual world, in the whole and in every part;
that nothing does or can exist in the former which has not an essential type or
pattern in the latter ; that the one subsists in the other as the cause
subsists in the effect ; and that each, and all things in each, proceed
from, and are sustained by, the one only Lord God, the Creator and Preserver of
all being. These views need only to be stated here, inasmuch as they are not,
to my knowledge, controverted ; and if they were, they have no direct, but
only a collateral connection with the main question at issue; which is involved
in the next proposition, viz: that man, by creation, is an inhabitant of
each of these two worlds at one and the same time : that, as to his spiritual substance
and form, which is the only true, real and immortal man, he is
constituted of the essential elements of, belongs to, dwells in, and is
inseparable from; the Spiritual World—even
during bis connection with the material organism, which is compounded of the
elements of the natural world, and
called his body.
The
common opinion, as inculcated by the popular, and, therefore, orthodox
system of philosophy, is, that man has a soul which is connected with his body,
and dwells in some particular part of it;—the exact point has not been, as yet,
accurately ascertained and determined; and I do not purpose to take any part
in the controversy, as I would rather know something of the nature and
character of the the inhabitant himself, than of the precise location
and architectural order of his dwelling.
This
“ soul of man,” as it is usually called, is admitted generally to be spiritual,
and thus in its nature, though not exactly in its powers and attributes,
independent of the material body. It is not supposed to possess, in itself, any
substance or form, these being, according to the prevalent
philosophy, only predicable of material, not of immaterial things. The soul,
therefore, is without substance, without form, and without any
determi-
3
nate
power of action, separate and apart from the material body. It is, however,
generally regarded as being possessed of conscious thought and feeling; though
divested of all the substances and forms, in which, as subjects, and
through which, as instruments, the phenomena of thought and feeling are
exhibited. It exists ; yet without substance ;—it subsists ;
yet without form ;—it sees without eyes, hears without ears, moves
without any of the organs of motion, and has, of course, no gender, being
neither male, female, nor neuter. In short, it is, a mystery, not to be comprehended ; but still to be believed
under the heaviest, the most awful penalties.
Such
are the teachings of the orthodox system of Religious Philosophy. On the other
hand, the philosophy of the New Church teaches that there are spiritual
substances, as well as material substances ; spiritual forms as well
as natural forms ; spiritual- bodies as well as natural bodies ;
spiritual affections and thoughts as well as natural affections
and thoughts—in short, a spiritual world as well as a natural
world. It teaches further, that man, as to his real, essential, and
immortal nature, is a spiritual substance and form ; by creation,
essence, and attributes—originally, actually, and eternally—an inhabitant of
the spiritual world; and, as such, entirely independent, both in essence
and in mode of existence, of the material body, which is only a vehicle,
a dwelling-place, an instrument of obedience and of use, while he is sojourning
or performing his pilgrimage in this ultimate, natural, or material world. As
a corollary, it teaches that it is this internal, substantive, and only real
man, which alone feels, tastes, touches, smells, hears, &.C.; and by no
means the material organism or body, in which he subsists, feels, and acts; and
which, in itself, is inert, insensible, and dead. It does, indeed, appear
as if the natural eye saw, the ear heard, the tongue tasted; but this is only
an appearance ; for it is a known and admitted truth, that sight,
hearing, &c., are not properties of, or qualities inherent in, matter. It,
indeed, appears as if the sight went out from the eye, through the
intervening space, to the object,—far or near—as also the hearing in
respect to sound; but this is obviously a mere appearance, and cannot be a
fact: for neither sight nor hearing, nor any other faculty, property or
quality, can, by possibility, exist separate, apart from, and out of, their
respective subjects. The sight, then, is not the eye, nor hearing the
ear; but they are properties or qualities inherent in, and inseparable from,
their subjects; which must be, in the very nature of things, organized substances
and forms ; for otherwise it would follow that properties and qualities
would exist and subsist positively and of themselves without any basis or
continent; in which case it would be absurd to call them properties or
qualities, the terms themselves being relative. As well could hardness or softness
be conceived as existing or subsisting out of their respective subjects, as
that vision or hearing should so exist or subsist.
Being,
then, necessarily inherent as accidents of some substance and form, the next
question is do they appertain to the material organism called the eye, the ear,
&.c. ? This surely cannot be affirmed with any color of reason. They have
nothing in common with the properties of matter. To assert that matter sees,
feels, hears, tastes, &c., would be to run counter to every principle of
Reason, Philosophy, and Religion. The common phenomena of Death would, it
should seem, be sufficient, of itself, to convince any thinking man, that such
a theory is grossly absurd. Death leaves all the material organs unchanged as
to their elements and forms; yet there is no life, sense, or motion in them.
But
it is believed by man that, although the material eye cannot see of itself, yet
the soul, when united to the body, confers that power. I will not
dispute about words; for whether the souZbe, what it is ordinarily conceived to
be, or not, it is certain that it cannot confer a power which it does not
itself possess. The error spring? from the idea that the soul is a mere thinking
principle, and not the real man, or at least, the life of his spiritual
substance and form. Could they be brought to acknowledge, in the heart and
head, that the Apostle uttered a real truth when he said there was a “ spiritual
body” as well as a “ natural body," it would not be so difficult
for them to see that this spiritual body has, in itself, all the organs and
functions which are manifested in the natural body, which is its simple
covering-and instrument: that all the affections and faculties do actually
appertain to, exist in, and proceed from, the organic substances and forms
which make up this “ spiritual body''1 (or the true man
himself), the material organism or “ natural body” being to him only as
it were a feeler, by which he detects the existence of sensible
objects—their forms and properties—while groping in the darkness of this nether
and inert world. His affections and thoughts, in all their infinite varieties,
are manifested outwardly in this world, by material organs adapted to this
use, but they themselves belong to the inward man, and are but the
manifested changes of state which are then occurring in those organic
substances and forms, called the will and the understanding,
which together make up, in the complex, the “spiritual body,” or the man. If this be not so, the dictates
of reason, the precepts of philosophy, and the doctrines of Revelation, are
vain and idle—the “ motliest vanities and merest words that ever fooled the ear
from out the schoolman’s jargon.” The death of the body quenches all sensible
and rational life, terminates all being, and extinguishes, in eternal
darkness, man and all his hopes I We feel, we think, we
see, we hear, we act no more: unless, indeed, these mortal and
invisible bodies of clay (which, by the hypothesis, would really be ourselves)
should be raised and re-organized again at some future time !—a conclusion
which is more comfortable than that of the ancient Materialists only in
this—that, while the one offers no hope whatever after death, the other
promises faintly, and at some far off and indeterminate period, that our
specific bodies, though scattered to the four winds of heaven, shall be
gathered together, re-created, and raised again: for I hold, as
an example, if he who was called Abraham, be not now a living, that is, feeling,
thinking, acting, and intelligent being, he is, to all intents and purposes, nothing : and that the promised
resurrection of the identical numerical body of matter, called Abraham, is, to
all intents and purposes, neither more nor less, than a re-creation of
Abraham. For how can it be said that a man is living, that is, feeling,
thinking, and acting, when not only all the organs of feeling, thought,
and action, but all substance whatever, organic or inorganic, is denied to him
? And must we be called mad, because we cannot believe in such a theory as
this 1 In the eye of reason, it would rather seem—but I will not
reciprocate the saw of puerile imputations.
The
affections and faculties, therefore, in all their varieties as to quality, and
in all their degrees as to power, are, in their nature and origin, spiritual,
necessarily inherent in, and inseparable from, that organized spiritual
being called man, who is their subject; and who, by creation
and the immortal nature of his substance, ever was, is now, and ever must be, a
fixed inhabitant of the spiritual world. Death, or the separation of the
immaterial from the material organism, works no change whatever in him. He is,
to all intents and purposes, in substance, form, and quality, the same man,
the same being, that he was while dwelling in his earthly tabernacle—having the
same will, the same understanding, the same substantial, spiritual, organic
sensories; in short, all things that appertained to him, and constituted him a
man, whilst living here—save only that he is no longer clothed or
encumbered with a material body. And as to location, death sends him on no
distant journey upwards through the fields of space, or downwards through the
dark caverns of the earth in search of a world to inhabit—a place to dwell in.
He is already, and from the moment of his creation, ever has been, in his own
world ; and needs not “ angel’s wings” to reach it. Instead of regarding
him as going into another world, the idea would be more correct
if it conceived him as simply indrawing himself from this; the natural body,
from decay or other causes, being no longer suited to him as an habitation, or
the purposes of the Creator, in his final destiny, no longer requiring his
presence in it.
It
is obvious, therefore, from the ordinary phenomena of human life,—to say
nothing of Reason and Revelation,—that man is created to beat one and the same
time, an inhabitant of the spiritual and the natural world. And if, as I think
is clear, his affections and faculties appertain to his spiritual and not to
his natural substance, it follows evidently that he is, by creation,
endowed as fully and as perfectly with the attributes essential to the converse
and intercourse of spiritual beings, as to the converse and intercourse of
natural beings : for, as to his essential substance, whieh is himself, he is
as closely associated with the former in the spiritual, as he is, as to
his material body, with the latter in the natural, world. Every man may
realize this, in some degree, in the contemplation of himself. We certainly can
look inwardly into our own hearts, as the common phrase is ; or,
in other words, we can see and examine our affections, intents,
purposes, &e., and determine for ourselves whether they be good or evil. We
can also perceive our thoughts and satisfy ourselves whether they be true or
false. These are not objects of natural vision, yet we can see them with equal
clearness by what is called the “ mind's eye.” These are intangible,
imponderable, immaterial, yet are they distinctly visible to our inward vision,
and constitute, indeed, the daily subjects of our own animadversions and of the
animadversion of others; being as they are the real sources of all our actions
and the sum and substance of all our words. In this sense, and in this way, it
may truly be said that we see and know ourselves and each other.
If,
then, man be an inhabitant of the spiritual world ; if his vital substance and
form, his will and understanding, his affections and thoughts,
do, in their very nature, appertain to that world,—and no one ean reasonably
controvert it,—what is there in the proposition that he is capable of seeing
and conversing with the spirits of the departed, which so startles our
philosophy and staggers our belief? Is there anything inconsistent in the
result with the principles laid down? We say that he is a spiritual and
immortal being, and that he possesses, as properties or attributes, inseparable
from his very substance itself, sense, vision, taste, hearing, &c.; and
when we affirm this, we do, by necessary consequence, affirm that he is an
inhabitant of the spiritual world: for a spiritual substance can no more exist
out of its own sphere of being, than a material substance eould exist out of
the world of matter. And when we admit that he is an inhabitant of the
spiritual world, W’ith the affections and faculties inseparable from his
nature, we do, at the same time, admit that, by creation, he is endowed
with the capacity to see and converse with those who dwell in that world.
But,
it may be said, admitting this capacity to exist, it does not follow that a man
may see and converse with departed spirits, inasmuch as the faculty or power is
not brought into action during his life in this world. This is another and a very
important question, whieh I propose to examine presently. I would now, in order
to avoid confusion and consequent misconception, prefer to keep the attention
directed to a single point.
When
I say that man, by creation, and of course, agreeably to the order of
the Divine Providence, is endowed with the capacity, as an essential
property of his nature, to see and converse with spirits and angels, I mean,
and desire to be understoed as saying, that, while he lives in this world, he
possesses fully and perfectly the powers essential to this end, whether he may
exercise them or not; and that, when he dies, and comes consciously into the
presence of those who have gone before him, he will need, in order to
appreciate all things by which he may be surrounded, no new will, no new
understanding, no new organs of taste, touch, sight, or hearing. Whatever he
may see, feel, or hear, will be felt, seen and heard, by identically the same
powers or faculties whieh he possessed and exercised while he lived in the body:
though not exercised cither on the same objects or by means of the same
material organs. If this be not so,—if he have another will and another understanding,—and,
what of course follows, another fountain of affections and of thoughts, with
all their connections, relations, and consequents, he is obviously not the same
being, but another man—whether, as the metaphysicians have argued it, personal
identity consists in inward consciousness or outward form.
Now,
if this be a correct view of the true character and position of man,—and I do
not perceive how it can be controverted, especially by Christians,—and further,
if the capacities or powers shown to be inherent in his very nature, be
brought into full exercise during his existence in the material world, I would
respectfully inquire of the serious and thinking, is it a wonderful thing that
a man should become acquainted with the persons and things, the character,
condition, opinions, habits, and modes of life which distinguish men in the
other world, of which he, by the hypothesis, is an inhabitant, and of the societies
of which he himself forms an integral part.’ I presume that but one answer can
be given to the question propounded under these circumstances and in this
form ; for it is, in substance, precisely the same as if I should ask, “ Is
it wonderful that a citizen of Bangor, either in his closet, with books,
or associating with intelligent men from England, France, or Turkey, should
become acquainted with the civil institutions, moral character, personal
habits, religious opinions, or even the physical peculiarities which
distinguish these countries and their population ?” Indeed, it might with some
reason be said, on the hypothesis, that the latter taxes our credulity to a
greater extent than the former; for, in the one case, it supposes that a man
may acquire information in respect to a country and its inhabitants without
ever having visited the one or associated with the other ; while, in the other,
the knowledge supposed is of a country in which we have always dwelt, and of beings
with whom we have always associated.
But
not to press this view of the subject further, I will take the occasion only to
observe how much the human reason has been blinded, and how fatally the
judgment has been perverted, by that old and absurd philosophy which teaches
that the spiritual world lies beyond the limits of space (and we talk of
infinite space), beyond the distant and blue canopy, which, as a fixed
firmanent, encircles all the orbs of the universe. The human understanding, in
its natural freedom, re-acts, in despite of education, against such a wild theory
as this; and doubtless the idea has occurred to many minds, after reading the
declaration of our Lord, to the thief on the cross—“This day shalt thou
be with me in paradise,” with what an inconceivable rapidity the soul
must travel through the regions of space, in order to reach its final abode !
Light with all its thought-like velocity, if the results of Astronomical
observations are to be relied on, could not reach even to some of the fixed
stars that the telescope discovers to us, in many thousands of years; and of
course its progression would be at a snail’s pace in comparison. No wonder
that minds enslaved by such a gross and miserable delusion as this, should deem
it utterly incredible that Swedenborg could ever have been actually present in
the spiritual world; or in proud and contemptuous ignorance, should scoff at
his declarations as the wild ravings of a maniac. Their ignorance
deserves pity, their theory contempt.
I
have offered these views in favor of the opinion that man is, by creation,
essentially and actually an inhabitant of the spiritual world; and that he is,
agreeably to the order of the Divine Providence, endowed with the capacity of
seeing and conversing with its inhabitants during his life in the body rather
with a hope of exciting inquiry, than of convincing any one’s judgment. The
subject is of no little importance ; and as I cannot here enter fully into the
views of the Church in regard to the creation and preservation of man and other
creatures, I will merely submit the following brief propositions.
First.—God,
the Creator, alone has life, or rather is life in Himself.
Second.—All
other substances being created by Him, are butreceipients of life from him in
their various orders and degrees.
Third.—In
the creation of man (as of all other beings,) God did not, as to life,
wind him up as a watch and leave him to run down, but his preservation is, as
it were, a perpetual creation,—and being a mere receipient of life, man must,
at every instant, in time and eternity, partake of the influx of the Divine
love and the Divine wisdom, which constitute essential life,—or his very
substance itself, with all that appertains to him, must utterly perish.
Fourth.—God
never did or can act against his own order,—being all perfect in holiness, and
infinite in wisdom and in power.
Fifth.—The
Divine love and the Divine wisdom which alone constitute essential life,
proceed from the Lord, through the spiritual world (as the heat and light of
the sun through the atmosphere) into the natural, and sustain it, in the whole
and in every part; and the will and understanding (which
together, as a real, substantial, organic essence and form,
constitute, with their attributes in the complex, what is called man),
are thus sustained, as to the liberty of the one, and the rationality
of the other ;—the will being the receptacle of the Divine love, and the understanding the
receptacle of the Divine wisdom
;—by which, through which, and in which man lives, moves, and has his being.
Sixth.—Man
being thus a spiritual substance and form, belongs, by creation, to the
spiritual world,—his appropriate and eternal sphere; and could not exist or
subsist one moment out of, or separate from, that world, any more than a
material substance and form could exist or subsist out of, or separate from,
the natural world—his temporary connection with the natural organism of the
body by no means presupposing or implying that he is out of his own world,—that
world of imperishable substances of which he forms an integral part.
Seventh.—The
above positions being admitted, (and I have never seen a sound argument against
them), it follows that man is at all times associated with those who have
departed out of this world as well as with those who remain in it, however
unconscious he may be of the fact during his connection with the natural body.
It may also be inferred that he is influenced by them, both as to his
affections and his thoughts, his words, and his actions even far more than he appears
to be by men with whom he associates in this world. This, however, will not be
left to inference—I propose to prove it to be the fact by
testimony which cannot be successfully controverted. I shall not deny that, in
outward appearance, man has life in himself,—he seems to be a
self-acting, independent being; living, moving, thinking, by his own inherent
power. But this is obviously an appearance only ; for had he life in
himself, could he live, move, and think of himself, according to the universal
suffrage of enlightened reason in all ages, he must needs be God. The
truth is he can neither live, move, think, nor act of himself. Life, with all
its powers, is a continual gift from the Great Author of his being; and he,
himself, is but a recipient of it. Could he, of himself, originate one single
affection or thought, could he, of himself, articulate one word, or perform one
solitary act, he might well claim an entire independence of his Maker. A
contrary doctrine has obtained in past ages of the world; and, perhaps, there
be some who even now tolerate the delusion ; but they who are thought, by
Christians, not to have kept their fit st estate (and whose history
has, probably, been also written in the heathen fable of the war of the
Titans), may be referred to as monuments of the error, and of its consequences.
I
come now, to a question having a more distinct bearing on the disclosures of
Swedenborg, viz:
Supposing
man by nature and creation, to be an inhabitant of the spiritual
world, and to be endowed with the capacity to see and converse with the spirits
of the departed, is it consistent with the order of the Divine Providence that
this power should be called into action and exercise during his life in the
natural body ?
To
this interrogatory the general response of our opponents is in the negative. It
is a “ miracle,” say they, and the
age of miracles is past; and though it may once have been in the
order of the Divine Providence, it is not so now. This, I say, is the general
response. There are many others, the shoots and scions of this, such as—How can
a man go aw’ay into the world above the skies and talk with spirits ? How can a
spirit, which is a soul {souls in their theology being very equivocal
and anomalous entities until the day of the resurrection of their bodies), be
seen by mortal eyes ? How can souls see, and talk, and hear, and
understand, when they have no substance or organs whatever ?
These
are, indeed, puzzling questions, according to their psychological theories—if,
in fact, they do not puzzle the theories themselves. I shall certainly not
admit the force of the one, until I am satisfied of the truth of the other. If
souls, or departed spirits, be of the character represented in their systems,
it is very certain that they never have been seen, either in this world or the
other, for they themselves must be as great a puzzle to each other in the other
world, as they are to us in this—at least, until they shall have re-assumed
their earthly bodies—which, however, are to be immediately changed into spiritual
bodies—when, according to their views of spiritual things, I do not
perceive that they would be much better off than before. But 1 pass by these
toys of the imagination.
In
the existing state of our race it is difficult to bring the mind to contemplate
what is, what was, and what always must be, the order of the Divine Providence
in our creation. The difference between our present and our primitive state is,
in fact, however words may cloak it, generally attributed to some arbitrary
change in the order of the Divine Providence in respect to us, and not to any
change in ourselves. The ordinary worship of the Old Church, its doctrines, its
liturgies, prayers, &c., all show how prevalent and how potent is this
ruling idea. In their view the Lord, since the fall, has been angry with us,
even to the extent of cursing; that He has forsaken us, and even repented that
He ever made us at all. If we exist at all, or at least, if we live with a hope
of salvation, it is only because the second person in the Trinity had
greater compassion for us than the first, and atoned for our sins, and
reconciled us to the Father. Still, contrasting our present with our primitive
state, seeing that angels no longer visit us, and that the voice of God is no
longer heard amongst us, we unwisely (I had almost said impiously)
attribute the fact to some change in God, and not in ourselves. We believe Him
to be a changeable Being. It is in vain either to attempt denial or
disguise; the truth is stamped on the heart, whatever words the tongue may wag.
Why the long prayers—the earnest and iterated invocations which we daily hear
in the houses of worship ? Why the fond and familiar terms oftimes so
shamefully uttered, when men affect to soothe and, as it were, cajole a
reluctant God to grant them the blessing they have importunately sought, but in
vain, by loud and reiterated appeals? Why, when one poor suppliant, at certain
meetings, has failed to excite the commiseration, or to induce God to “send
down his Spirit amongst us,” is another “ brothel’ called upon, as
probably a greater favorite, to “ wrestle with the Lend for the poor dying
sinners?” Why, amongst certain denominations, is the first half-hour of “religious
services” employed, in reminding God, with lifted hands and eyes, of many
things which, by inference, He has forgotten—enumerating His titles,
recounting His glorious acts, magnifying His great name—with all the other flattering
and suasive accompaniments of what are called “ eloquent prayers ?” Why,
in short, do we daily see and hear in the ceremonies of public
worship, everywhere, so many and so gross departures from the simple modes of
prayer and praise enjoined by the Lord Himself, and illustrated by His example
? Men may deceive themselves, but at the bottom of all these sad delusions lies
the trampled-on truth to which I have adverted—God is regarded, in the
heart, as a changeful, reluctant, if not, passionate Being, who, to use the
common phrase, is to be wrestled with,” and whose favors are to be wrung
from Him by iterated and ardent appeals, which, as tne language is, “ storms
heaven.”
Now,
these things—and Heaven is my witness that I mention them with no design to
excite ridicule—can only proceed from the causes to which I have referred; and
yet, the error is not more pernicious than palpable. The Lord cannot change,
cannot act arbitrarily. The heathen philosopher* had a far more rational
and Christian idea of God than
Pythagoras. Vide Hierocles’ Com. pp.
190, 191. this. “ God never ceases to offer us all good things, but this the
greatest part of men do not see, because they do not rightly improve those
common notions which our Maker has imprinted on rational beings, as a mark to
lead us to the knowledge of himself. God is not the cause that He does not show
to all men these things, but they are themselves the cause of it, who neither
see nor hear that good things are near them. They draw on themselves their own
evils of their own accord. The fault is in him that chooses, and God is in no
wise to blame, seeing that He continually offers the things that are good to
all men; but as to the greatest part of them, the eyes of the soul, which are
alone capable of seeing the good that is thus continually offered, are closed
or fixed downward on the earth through an habitude which they have contracted
of adhering always to what is evil.”
The
actual state of our race presents the only example of inverted order in all the
creations ol God. All beings, save man, exist in the order in which
they were made. He was created to look upwards to heaven, but by the abuse of
his faculties he looks downward on the earth. He has left the realms of light,
and cast himself in a dungeon, and then most preposterously concluded that the
whole economy of the Universe has been changed, and that the sun has withdrawn
his beams from him. Wedded to the darkness of his subterranean cell, he still
prays for light, but refuses to come forth; and if his prayer be not granted,
he taxes the sun, and not his own folly. This is a frightful, but a faithful
picture of the actual state of our case; and while it may furnish us, in its
results, with very just notions of the disorder that reigns in
ourselves, it can in no wise be regarded as determining the laws of Divine
order in respect to us, unless it be by contrast. For if, in our inverted
state, all conscious communication with the spiritual world be cut off, we may,
with some confidence, infer that in our state of order—in the order of our
creation—the result would be different. This is not only consistent with reason,
but it is sustained by facts, as we find them recorded in the Divine
Word. Before the fall, our progenitors are represented as conversing freely
with their Maker. They heard His voice, and He spake to them the words of
warning and of comfort. The details of their life are, indeed, few; but, taken
in connection with what is subsequently taught, there is every reason to
believe that the spiritual world was as fully open to their vision as the
natural. Even after his fatal lapse, man’s intercourse with the world invisible
was not suddenly and entirely cut off. God is said to have appeared to, and
conversed with him, both before and after the fall. This must have been through
some spiritual and finite intelligence, as God, in His essential Divinity,
must be invisible as well as incomprehensible. He, according to the literal
sense of the Word, appeared to, and conversed with Noah, informing him of the
approaching deluge, and instructing him what to do. When he entered the ark,
God is represented as “ shutting him in.” It is even said that the sons
of God saw the daughters of men, and took them to wife. The Lord also
appeared often to Abraham. Both he and Lot entertained and discoursed with
angels; nor is it anywhere intimated that they or others were surprised at this
condescension, or regarded it as a miracle, in the populat, modern, theological
sense of that word. Those entertained by Abraham were also seen and spoken to
by his wife. The two that appeared to Lot, were seen by the inhabitants of
Sodom, who attempted to seize them. An angel also appeared to, and conversed
with, Hagar in the wilderness ; and when the Lord “ appeared to Abram, and
said unto him, I am the Almighty
God—walk before me and be thou perfect” and promised him an heir
to his house, instead of indicating astonishment or terror, “ Abraham fell upon
his face and laughed, and said, in his heart, shall a child be born unto
him that is a hundred years old ?” And that it may not be said that these
visions and conversations were in this outward natural world, I will merely
state here, that, in many instances of a similar character, it is expressly
declared that they were not; as, when “ the angel of God called to Hagar, out
of heaven and “ God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water.”
And when “ the angel of the
Lord
railed to him, out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham ; and he said,
Here am I.” But why multiply examples ? The Divine Word is full of them. All
the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles saw and conversed with angels, through
whom, for the most part, the Word of the Lord came to them. The whole of the
Apocalypse, from the beginning to the end, is declared to be a record of things
seen and heard in the spiritual world ; for the Evangelist states in the first
part of it that he was “ in the spirit," when he saw and heard what
he was commanded to write.
And
what are we to conclude from this mass of undoubted and uncontroverted facts ?
Surely, it should not be denied, at least, by Christians, that they
conclusively prove what I have asserted, that man, by creation, is
endowed with—and, agreeably to the Divine order, is capable of exercising—the
power of seeing and conversing with beings in the spiritual world, during his
natural life in the body. They go further, and as conclusively prove, that even
during his natural life in the body, man, as to his spiritual and immortal
part, is actually in the world of spirits, and in association with its
inhabitants ; for it is nowhere intimated that they who thus beheld and
conversed with angels and spirits, had been elevated out of their material
bodies. On the contrary, such a conclusion is expressly negatived in many
instances ; as, for example, in the case of Elisha, when Elijah was taken from
him; and yet more strongly in that of Elisha’s servant, of whom it is written :
“And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth,
behold, a host compassed the city, both with horses and chariots. And his
servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do ? And he answered, Fear
not; for they that be with us, are more than they that be with them.
And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes that he may
see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw; and,
behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about
Elisha.” The same words are used by Luke when the Lord appeared to two of his
disciples on their way to Emmaus, after his resurrection. Though he conversed
with them yet they knew him not; for “ their eyes were holden, that they
should not know him and afterwards as he sat at meat, “ their eyes were
opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight.”
Now,
in these cases, it cannot be said that the persons concerned, were actually
elevated out of their natural bodies. They were conversing with one another as
man with man; and the Word itself explains the manner in which they were
rendered capable ef seeing the objects around them in the spiritual world, viz:
“ their eyes were opened ”—obviously not their natural eyes, for they
were open already—but their spiritual eyes, the eyes of their inward and
immortal essence, which alone is capable of vision both in this world and the
world of spirits.
I
am aware that Paul does, indeed, say of himself when he was caught up into the
third heaven, and received certain revelations from the Lord, that he did not
know whether he was in the body or out of the body. But this doubt, so far from
overthrowing the conclusion, rather confirms it; for surely, if he had been
actually separated from his body, he could have felt no doubt upon the subject.
I do not, however, regard the settlement of this particular case as carrying
with it any especial force ; though I am not ignorant that it has been a
question of some controversy amongst ancient and modern churchmen—the one side
maintaining that when Paul speaks of visions seen in Paradise (a place which
all the ancient Fathers, I believe, Origen excepted, supposed to be distinct
from heaven), he was, like Ezekiel and the other prophets, not out of tbe body,
but in “ extacy,” or “ seeming rapture,” as they call it; while in the
case before us, when he speaks of being caught up to the third heaven, they
imagined him to be actually elevated out of the body. The latter branch of the
proposition was controverted with characteristic zeal and perseverance.
The
controversy arose out of the erroneous theory that heaven is in some distinct,
and far distant portion of space—a theory not only inconsistent with the very
nature of things, but directly in opposition to the declaration of the Lord,
who taught his disciples the great truth that the kingdom of heaven is within,
and not without us.
But
to return to the subject more immediately under consideration. The facts to
which I have adverted teach not only that man, by creation, is capable of
seeing spiritual beings during his natural life, but another and highly
important truth, viz: that man, after death, retains perfectly the human form,
and all the essential attributes of his nature. Men of the Old Church can, with
the greatest difficulty, be brought to realize this; having imbibed from their
creeds and teachers the opinion that souls are certain thinking principles, which
can have no forms until they are again united to their
resurrection-bodies—forms not being predicable of any other substance than
matter. And yet it cannot be easily seen how the difficulty is obviated upon
their own principles ; for, as I have before observed, though the identical
numerical body is, according to their theory, to rise again at the last day,
yet their doctrines teach that it is to undergo an instant and entire change,
and to be made spiritual, in which event, if the theory be consistent,
it will lose all formal capacities, and, therefore, all qualities. And
thus souls will derive no conceivable benefit from these disquieted atoms of
clay, so unnecessarily disturbed in the silence and darkness of the sepulchre.
And yet, strange to say, it is in these immaterial and formless bodies, that
the martyrs (in the opinion of many of those who are called the
Fathers of the Old Church, in former times, and of some Doctors of Divinity
in later periods, both eminent and orthodox), are to enjoy a personal reign
with Christ on this earth, a thousand years, luxuriating in the products
of the material world—in rich banquets of flesh and wine, and other delicacies—
ministered unto by heathen slaves—marrying and giving in marriage—rearing
children, &c., &c. ! ! It is one thing to speak of the holy mysteries
of religion ; but it is another and a very different thing to give to the
grossest absurdities the passport of their name. The common instincts of reason
might teach men, one would suppose, that there can be no real entity that is
not a substance, and that no substance can exist or subsist without form,
substance and form being in the nature of things one and inseparable.
I
have shown that men do not go out of their natural bodies in order to see and
converse with beings in the spiritual world ; and the facts are so clear and
indisputable, that learned and Reverend Divines (I use the language of
the times), to whom particular systems are ever most dear, whether orthodox or
otherwise, have been compelled to transfer the argument, and to maintain that,
though the Patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles did not actually go out of their
bodies into the spiritual world to see and converse with angels and spirits,
yet these latter may have left their abodes and come into the natural world
again to see and converse with them. And in order to effect this, they assumed
for the time, a material body or shape that they might make themselves
manifest, as in the flesh. So stern is the tyranny of creeds—so blinding the
influence of perverted truths ! The hypothesis, as every one will readily
perceive, springs out of the same common error,—the well-spring of many
delusions,—that man is nothing but a material being enlivened by some vital spark
; and as such, incapable of seeing any other than material objects.
Vain are all attempts to disguise the truth ; and it is the “fiend's
arch-mock” to practice deception on ourselves; and this we do when we
permit our understandings to frame, and our tongues to utter, what our hearts
repudiate. Why, let me ask, if they assume a shape cognizable by the natural
eye, why is it said, as in the cases above cited, the Lord “opened their
eyes”—“their eyes were opened and they saw ?”fyc. If the forms appertained
to the natural world,—if they partook, in any degree, of the matter or
substance of this world, there would have been no occasion for saying “their
eyes were opened”—or for “opening their eyes.” Their natural organs
of sigh t were already opened, as I have shown ; and could have detected any
natural object in the
each
of vision. Clearly they were not the natural organs of vision that were opened,
but the spiritual:—and, as a necessary consequence, the substances and forms
seen by them were spiritual also. When David prayed to the Lord to “ open
his eyes that he might behold wondrous
things out of the word,” can it be reasonably supposed that they
were natural organs of vision which he desired should be opened ? A theory that
demands such a tribute from reason, revelation, and common sense, cannot have
the truth of God for its support.
If,
then, it require only that the vision of our spirits be opened in order that we
may become really and consciously cognizant of and conversant with spiritual
objects—men and things ;—and, if it be evident, that the Almighty God has,
heretofore, in many instances, opened that vision ; I see no just grounds, from
reason or revelation to stagger and turn up our eyes, merely because Emanuel
Swedenborg has declared that his spiritual vision has been opened by the same
Almighty Power, and for great and benevolent purposes— neither do I feel my
reason constrained to reject his information on this account merely. The fact
asserted is undoubtedly consistent with the capacities of our nature, and
compatible with the fixed order of the Divine Providence. This we must grant
if we believe the Holy Scriptures; and admit that the order of the Lord God has
not changed in the last few centuries. The only difficulty that presents itself
to our minds is to be found in the creeds of the orthodox denominations of the
old church, which have determined, First, That every development of the
Divine economy inconsistent with the common phenonema of the fallen and
inverted state of human life, is a miracle, because it is not
understood. Second, That the opening of the spiritual vision, in these
latter days, is inconsistent with these common phenonema; and, therefore, a miracle.
Third, The age of miracles being past, all accounts of such opening
of the spiritual vision, must be, ipso facto, absurd, incredible, and
blasphemous.
I
have nothing to offer in reply to propositions so bold in their statements, so
abrupt in their reasons, and so summary and decisive in their conclusions. I
shall only avail myself of the occasion to say that a miracle, in the
sense annexed to the word by the consummated church, never did and never can
occur. According to their views, a miracle necessarily implies some
departure on the part of the Deity from the laws of his own order, as exhibited
in the government of the world. This is a gross and glaring error ; for it is
most clear that God is incapable of change. What therefore appears in
Him to be change, may with far more reason be attributed to the state of the
subject through which unusual phenomena, called miracles, are developed.
The opening of the spiritual vision, for example, in the view of the Old Church
Doctors, would manifest some sudden, arbitrary, and inconsistent movement of
the Deity totally independent of the man; and therefore, a miracle. The New Church philosophy, on
the other hand, attributes the phenomena to the peculiar state of the man, in
connection with some wise and benevolent purpose on the part of the Lord; and
so far from implying anything arbitrary or capricious in the Deity, or the
least departure from his own order, only exhibits what that order is,
universally and particularly, where the state of the subjects admits of
its natural development. Were the race of mankind orderly and not
inverted, these phenomena would cease to be deemed miraculous, much
less arbitrary and capricious on the part of God. They would be seen to pertain
to human life as naturally, nay, as necessarily, as outward vision. This is not
now seen or made manifest, because man, from the love of self and the world,
has plunged into disorder and darkness—averted himself and all that pertains to
him from heaven, and thereby closed his own eyes. It is equally absurd and
blasphemous to attribute this aversion, this disorder and darkness to any, the
least shadow of change in his great and wise and unchangeable Maker and
Preserver. If it can be shown that, in any one instance, since the
creation of man, the Lord has opened the vision of the spirit, it may with entire
confidence be inferred that the fact is not inconsistent with the Divine
order; but, on the contrary, is entirely consistent with that order. That men,
therefore, are not now universally endowed with this privilege, must arise from
some opposing obstacle in themselves, and superinduced by themselves
; or the Lord must be an unsteady, capricious, and imperfect Being. Which
conclusion better comports with a Christian philosopher’s principles, or a
Christian disciple’s faith ?
In
connection with this view I may as well here observe that the NewChurch is in
the steadfast belief of such a dispensation of truth as will, in the end,
restore to man this long lost privilege. We confidently believe that man has
reached, what may be termed, the apogee in the descending orbit of his
degradation ; and that by a progressive ascent upwards, corresponding to the
descending steps of his decline, he is now returning to his Maker and his God.
And though ages may elapse before he arrive at the place whence he departed,
yet he will as assuredly reach it, as the earth, from the wintry point of its
orbit, will reach its summer solstice. The reasons of this assurance,
this steady and unshakable belief, are to be found in the great truths which
have been revealed to the church—truths whose influence is just beginning to be
felt and observed; and whose power and progress can neither be weakened nor
arrested, though all the theologians on earth combine for that purpose. We see
these truths, whence they are, what they are, and how they are to work out this
great problem. We look for no sudden or startling developements—no fearful
signs in the visible heavens or on the earth—no terrible convulsions; but for a
quiet, orderly, and progressive improvement and elevation of the affections of
the will, and the faculties of the understanding, until we shall be restored to
the lost image and likeness of our Maker, and the tabernacle of God be again
with us. This hope and this faith, founded on a clear perception of the truths
of the Divine Word, can never be shaken; though all the sectaries in
Christendom assemble together in council or synod, and, complacently assuming
infallibility, proceed, in more thcologico, to dogmatise, denounce, -and
excommunicate.
Another
question intimately connected with the subject under consideration deserves to
be noticed, viz : Do angels or spirits really act upon and influence the
character and conduct of men during their life in the material body ? If they
do, then it is absolutely certain that we are actually in association with them
while we live and move in this world ; for it is clear that no such influence
could be exerted by them, if all communication were cut off". It is
equally manifest also that, as they do not actually come into this world, in
order to exert this supposed influence upon us, so we do not and need not go
into the other world in order to be made subject to it. From this simple fact
alone unbiassed and enlightened reason might safely conclude that they and the
world in which they dwell are not beyond the stars, or at au infinite distance
from us ; but that they are near us ; and that we are, as to our immortal,
intelligent essence, actually in that world while our material bodies are in
this. How otherwise could they affect us ? But I shall presently place the
question on another ground where it will be less liable to captious objections.
The
opinion that men are acted upon and influenced by spiritual beings, whether
called angels, spirits, demons or devils, is coeval with the earliest records
of our race, and coextensive with all human society. There never was a period
when it did not prevail, nor a people that did not entertain it. The
theological systems of every nation on the globe with which we have any
acquaintance give to the doctrine a prominent place. The Jewish, Egyptian,
Indian, Persian, Chaldean, Grecian, and Roman records attest the fact. The
ancient philosophers—men who not only impressed themselves on the age in which
they lived, but the traces of whose deep wisdom are not yet entirely
effaced—universally admitted and inculcated the doctrine ; not excepting even
the founders of what are called the Atheistical sects. Thales, the earliest
amongst the Grecian philosophers according to Cicero, Plutarch, Stobceus, and
the Christian philosopher Athenagoras, taught that the souls of men, after
death, were spiritual substances, distinguished into good and evil; and
that they acted directly and powerfully on men during their life in this world.
The same doctrine was taught by the Egyptian priests before the time of Thales,
as we are told by
Jamblicus,
and others ; and such was the theory of Pythagoras and Plato, as we learn from
Plutarch, Cicero, Psellus, and Fabricius. Zeno and his followers maintained the
same doctrine with a clearness and force hardly credible when we consider the
age in which they lived. The Epicureans not only taught the existence and
influence of departed spirits on men, but, as it appears from the history of
their philosophy, recorded by Laertius, affirmed that God governed the world by
means of genii or demons—as the souls of the departed were usually called. The
Chaldean philosophy gives to the doctrine a very prominent place; and it would,
perhaps, be well for some who call themselves “ Evangelical Christians,”
and who ridicule all things not obvious to the senses, to read the account
given by Psellus of the doctrines of the school, as derived from a Christian
convert, Marcus of Mesopotamia, who had been a disciple, and, as such, well
acquainted with its tenets. Speaking of the views entertained in regard to
unclean spirits, he says, “ it was taught that they circumvent men by art and
subtlety, and deceive the minds of men, and draw them to absurd and unlawful
passion. These things they affect, not as having absolute dominion over us, and
carrying us as their slaves whithersoever they will, but by suggestion ;
for, applying themselves to the spirit within us—they themselves being spirits
also—they instil affections and pleasures, not by audible voice, but by whispering,
insinuating discourse. Nor is it impossible that they should speak without
voice—if we consider that he who speaks, being afar off-, is forced
to use a greater sound, but being near, speaks softly in the ear of the hearer
; and if he could get into the spirit of the soul, he would not need any sound;
but what discourse soever he pleaseth would, by a way without sound, arrive
there where it is to be received; which, they say, is likewise in souls when
they are out of the body ; for they discourse with one another without voice.
After this manner the demons converse with us privily, so that we are not
sensible which way the war comes upon us. They distort the possessed person,
and speak by him, making use of the spirit of the patient, as if it were their
own organ.” The latter part of this seems to contain a very accurate
description of the energwneni of the New Testament. The same views
distinguished the doctrines of the Persian Zoroaster, and those of the Sabeans
; and we discover a similar philosophy in the Somnium Scipiouis, the
account ot the “ evil genius” of Brutus, and the demon of
Socrates. This last has been the subject of so many commentaries from the pens
both of heathen and Christian philosophers, that I need add nothing to show the
same views distinguished the school which he founded.
But
these opinions, it may be said, obtained only amongst the heathen, and
are not therefore entitled to any weight; for, strange as is the delusion,
there be many at this day who, in the fond conceit of their own special
election and pre-eminence, believe that the Creator had very little concern
about his creatures, particularly the heathen, anterior to the era of
councils and synods—they being, from the beginning, created for the purpose of
exhibiting the terrors of divine wrath, and the implacable rigors of
vindictive justice, and therefore deprived both of the love and the knowledge
of truth. The prevailing systems of sectarianism do very grudgingly admit them
to be reasonable beings, and this only, it would seem, to sustain their creed
proposition—rationality being accorded to secure accountability, and thereby
eternal damnation. These horrid theories (and they characterize, in some
degree, every sect in Christendom) would have us to believe that the
ever-gracious and almighty Creator has been, from the beginning of time,
principally engaged in creating men, in order that he might cast them into hell
1 This most hideous and blasphemous conception was so frightfully embodied in
the system of Calvin, that the founder of the Methodist sect, John Wesley,
very characteristically observed of it, “ Idefy you to say so hard a thing
of the devil” Strange—passing strange—far more marvellous and
astounding than all the memorabilia of Emanuel Swedenborg combined, is
the fact that such abominable tenets should gain the assent, or receive the
countenance, of a solitary human, not to say Christian, being!
But
I take no pleasure in contemplating, nor have I any time to devote to, these
frightful and lamentable hallucinations. I dismiss them without any form of
exorcism, in order to refer to other testimonies which may not be so easily put
aside. I appeal to the Holy Scriptures themselves.
And
here I make bold to say, that there is no truth more clearly taught in the Divine
Word than the actual influence of good and evil spirits on men. This must be
evident to any one who has read either the Old or New Testament. To say nothing
of the direct and open intercourse of men and angels, I would ask who were they
who influenced the prophets of Ahab ? Who was it that so much disturbed the
soul of Saul ? Who persecuted Job? Who tempted the Lord Himself ? Who possessed
Mary Magdalen, and who were they that were cast out of him who had become the
habitation of those that called themselves legion ? Who were those
designated by the Evangelists and the Apostles as the principalities and powers
of this world ? of the air ? the prince of this world I whose emisaries are
described as the “ rulers of the darkness of this world ?” Can any Christian
have the hardihood to deny that they were evil spirits, and that they exercised
so fearful influence over men, that unless the Lord bad come into the world,
in order to their subjugation, no flesh could have been saved ? An able Old
Church commentator on the New Testament declares that “ we were subject to the
power and delusion of evil and apostate spirits, walking according to the
prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of
disobedience. These principalities and powers Christ despoiled on the cross, by
the name of a crucified Jesus, and by the very sign of the cross, casting out
the prince of the world from his dominions, temples and oracles,
and from those human bodies he possessed; and so openly convincing the heathens
that the deities they so long had worshiped, were evil spirits,
and by the miracles wrought in his name, drawing them from their heathen
worship to Him.’’ So great then was their power admitted to be, that they were
regarded and worshiped by the heathens as Gon, as we are informed in the
Psalms, while on the other hand, good
spirits, both by the Jews and many of the earlier Christians, received a little
honor. Philo, Clorinthus, and Celsus, amongst the former, maintained that the
Law and the Prophets were given by the ministration of angels ; that they were
ambassadors of good things from men to God, and from God to men ; and that, in
the government of the world they performed the offices attributed by Plato and
other heathen philosphers to their demons and heroes. Philo (L.
de Plant. Ho. p. 168) defends the doctrine on the authority of Moses himself;
and the declaration of the angel in Tobit, ch. 12, who said that he was one of
the seven angels, who offered up the prayers of the saints, and who, when Tobit
and Sarah prayed, “ brought the memorial of their prayer before the Holy One,”
seems to favor it. Amongst the earlier Christians the question was for a long
time warmly debated, whether they should be worshiped as Mediators.! CEcumenius
and Theodoret inform us that such worship prevailed for a long time in
Laodicea, Phrygia, and other parts of Christendom, and that temples were
erected to Michael (liKrtipia tov
ayiov Mi^anX), who in Joshua (ch. v. 14), is called the captain of the
Lord’s host. OrigenJ says his office was to present the prayers and
supplications of men—mortalium preces, sup- plicationesques curare—and
Hermes§ assigns to him the government of Christians, and Ni- cephorus|| the
superintendence of their faith ('0 rav Xpurrianan mffrcais epopos).
I
shall not stop here to dispute with the Romish Church about the invocation of
saints, whether regarded as mediators of intercession or of redemption—my
object being merely to show that amongst Heathens, Jews, and Christians, there
has ever been a deeply-seated conviction that the spirits of the departed do
act directly and powerfully upon us—a conviction which, in these latter days,
seems to excite priestly merriment instead of prayers.
But
to return to the question as regards evil spirits. I had designed to
make copious extracts from the ancient Greek and Roman Fathers to show what was
the opinion of the Church from the time of the Apostles down to the era of
Constantine, but my engagements are too urgent to allow me the time. I must
content myself with simple references.
Justin
Martyr, who was amongst the earliest of the Fathers whose works have come down
to us, in his first apology states expressly that the Lord came into the world in
order to overcome the power which evil spirits exercised overmen—“as you
may now know,” says he, “ from the testimony of your own eyes ; many Christians
in various parts of the world, healing those who are possessed by
devils, and casting them out by the name of Jesus.”* He declares also, in the
same place, that “ the early Christians not only cured diseases produced by
evil spirits (I hope Dr. Pond will not sneer and scoff at this), but
cast them out and made them confess who and what they were.” And in his
dialogue with Trypho, he states that, in his time, all devils and evil spirits
were under the control of Christians ; “Even now we who believe in Jesus
adjuring all devils and evil spirits, keep them in subjection ; all kinds of
demons being adjured, are brought under our control.”! In the same place he
appeals to Trypho himself, “If you are diposed, it is easy for you even now to
be convinced of these things with your own eyes.
Origen,
in his controversy with Celsus,! says, “there are not a few Christians only who
cast out devils from those who are possessed ; for this is done, for the most
part, by the meanest Christians—the grace of God, and the word of Christ,
demonstrating that to expel evil spirits from the souls and bodies of men,
requires not men of wisdom or eminence in the faith.” He goes even further and
declares that “such is the power of the name of Jesus, that it was
effectual sometimes even when used by wicked men.”§ “It is certain,” says he,
“that by the name of Jesus ten thousand devils have been cast out of the souls
and bodies of men, who were possessed by them.”||
Cyprian
bears the same testimony, and in his letter to Demetrianus, a prosecutor of the
Christians, says—“Come and see for yourself, and test the truth of what we say
! And since thou sayest thou dost worship the gods, believe the gods whom thou
worshippest; or, if thou wilt, believe thyself; for he that now dwells
in thy bosom, and keeps thy soul in ignorance, shall in thy hearing speak of thee,
thou shaft see them whom thou callest upon, entreating us; those whom thou fearest,
fearing us; shalt see bound and trem- ling under our hands, those whom thou
servest as gods. Surely it must be sufficient to confound thee in thine errors
when thou shalt see thy gods at our command, instantly confessing what they
are, not daring to conceal their cheats in thine own presence.”11 And in his
epistle to Donatus he observes, “It is the peculiar privilege of a Christian to
compel unclean spirits to confess what they are, and to force them to depart
from those they infest.”** “ These demons, being adjured by the true God, do
instantly confess, and are forced to depart from the bodies they possess J and
you may observe, when addiessed by us in the power of God, whipped and
scorched, as it were ; and, as their torments increase, you may hear them
howling, groaning, depricating and confessing, even in hearing of their
votaries, whence they came and when they will depart.”ft ^Minutius makes a similar
statement, “Most men know,” says he, “and some of you yourselves, that all your
demons when compelled by our words and prayers, to leave the bodies they have
possessed, do with grief confess what they are, not denying their own
filthiness even in your own presence. Believe, then, their own testimony when
they truly acknowledge themselves to be but devils.” Tertullian, in his
apology, uses similar language—“when compelled, they come forth from the bodies
they possess with great reluctance, grief and shame, when you are
present; you who have believed their lies, believe them when they speak the
truth of themselves, for none will lie to their disgrace,” &.C. Dictis non stitis, si oculi vestri et aures
permiserint vobis,” are words that indicate the fullest confidence in the
facts he details.
Lactantius,
who flourished near the age of Constantine, shows that this power was still
exercised by Christians in his time. “ Let any one,” says he, “who is
possessed, mad and raving, be brought before your Jupiter,—or, if he be
deficient in skill, to Aesculapius or Apollo,—and let their priests exorcise him
in the name of their supposed deities; and the attempt to relieve him will be
vain. Butlet the devils who possess him be adjured in the name of the true God,
and they will instantly depart.”! And Irenaeus relies upon the fact as
incontestable evidence of the truth of the religion he taught. “For by these
means,” he says, “we confound the advocates of Simon Magus, and the whole tribe
of deceitful heretics ; forasmuch as they cannot cast out all kinds of evil
spirits, but only such as are their confederates, if even they do this.”!
Origen§ and Clemens|| go even further, and declare that the heathen temples and
oracles themselves were purged of the evil spirits who uttered voices within
them. And it is a fact worthy of remark, that about this period they did become
silent and neglected as we are told by Stoboeus.lT Plutarch, Porphyry,ft and others. Irenaeus further
observes—“Christians so strongly and certainly possess the power of casting out
evil spirits, that it often happens that they who are healed and delivered from
these evil spirits, believe and continue in the church.”!! Lactantius refers to
this as accounting for the multitude of those who embraced the Christian faith;
for, the evil spirits being cast out, “omnes qui resarati fuerint,
adheereant religioni cujus potent iam senserunt. Clemens appeals in the
most earnest language to those who had not yet embraced the true faith, and
says—“Be ye baptized in the name of the most Holy Trinity ; and ye will then if
ye believe withentire faith, and in true purity of mind, have power to cast out
unclean spirits and devils out of others, and free men from diseases. We
beseech you, therefore, to become of our religion, and assure you of a
certainty, that when you have advanced to the same faith and innocence of
life with us, you shall also obtain like power over all evil spir- its.”§§
So fully assured .were they of the truth of these facts, that they were willing
to stake their very lives on the proof of them; “I submit this,” says
Tertullian, “in proof of the matter; let any one be brought before your
tribunals, who is manifestly possessed by an evil spirit, and let any Christian
command him to say what he is, and he shall as cer' tainly confess himself to
be truly a devil, as, on other occasions, he will falsely profess himself to be
a God. Or produce any other of those who profess to be inspired by any of your
gods; and if they do not confess themselves to be devils, not daring to lie to
a Christian, let the blood of that Christian be shed before you on the spot.
What more evident can we offer than such an experiment.’ What more satisfactory
than such proof ?”||||
I
might extend this list through many pages, but I have not the leisure, nor is
the labor necessary. My object is accomplished, if I have shown that the
primitive Christians, holding fast to the faith deliveicd in the gospels, did
believe in the existence and influence of good and evil spirits, that such
spirits did powerfully affect men while living in the body; and that,
therefore, the one kind was not at an inconceivable distance from us, above the
Empyrean, nor the other in the comets, or the sun, or in the centre of the
earth, as modern theologians have taught or inculcated. On the contrary, that
they are near, nay, in us, and associated with us, in their own world,
wherein we, as to our essential and immortal part, also dwell.
I
am aware that infidels, both heathen and Christian (for there are more of the
latter than are supposed), have caviled at the facts stated, maintaining that
the persons said to be possessed, were only affected with epilepsy,
hypochondriasis, mania, and other nervous diseases. The position might serve
as a text for another and different discourse, but I must pass it by. You will
find the whole subject very fully discussed in a work placed in your hands when
I last saw you, entitled, “ An Inquiry into the meaning of Demoniacs, mentioned
in the New Testament,” published before the time of Swedenborg.
In
order, likewise, to discredit these facts, some modern sceptics have asserted
that these phenomena—the actual possession of evil spirits—were never heard of
either before or after this period of the Christian era. Dr. Pond and his
coadjutors will probably assert the same; but this is against the truth of
history. These phenomena were observed before the Christian era, as well as
long subsequent to the age of Constantine. Josephus* informs us that they were
observed by Solomon, and that God taught him how to cast out evil spirits; and
Irensus tells us that the Jews did this before the Christian era, by the
invocation of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.f The sons of Scaeva,
mentioned in Acts xix. 13, also cast out evil spirits. And amongst the heathen
nations the same practice prevailed, as we are told by Plutarch,}: Lucian,§ Justin
Martyr,|| andOrigen-IT In more modern times, even as late as the seventeenth
century, we are told on highly credible authority, that similar phenomena have
been witnessed. Dr. Cudworth, who has copied some accounts of them in his
Intellectual System of the Universe,** undoubtedly believed in their truth.
After quoting three remarkable cases from Psellus, Sennertus, and Fernelius
(the two last being eminent physicians of his own times), this distinguished
scholar and theologian observes : fc There are many other instances of this
kind recorded by modern writers unexceptionable, of persons cither wholly
demoniacal, and possessed by evil demons (they appearing from their discovering
secrets and speaking languages which they had never learnt), or else otherwise
so affected or infested by them, as to have certain unusual and supernatural
symptoms, which, for brevity’s sake, we here omit. However, we thought it
necessary thus much to insist upon this argument of demoniacs, as well for the vindication
of Christianity, as for the conviction of Atheists ; we finding
some so staggering in their religion, that from this one thing alone of
demoniacs (they being so strongly possessed that there neither is nor ever was
such), they are ready enough to suspect the whole Gospel, or New Testament
itself of fabulosity and imposture.”
I
might dwell at much greater length on this subject, and its importance would
well justify it; but I have not the necessary leisure. I consider it as of the
utmost moment that men should fully realize, on clear, philosophical grounds,
the great practical truth, that they are constantly under the influence of
spiritual agencies, whose power works either for life or for death. Until
they shall have a clear perception of this, it is impossible for themever to
distinguish between the evils which are hereditary in themselves, and those
which proceed from their associate spirits. They can never go through any
rigid process of self-examination, but believing that all the evil
suggestions, appetites, and propensities to which they are subject, belong to
themselves—to be their own, and not to appertain to others, their
wicked mentors—they cannot so effectually reject and cast them out.
Could they be clearly seen to belong to, and proceed from others, they
would be as readily detested and as quickly condemned in themselves, as common
observation shows they are in their neighbors.. How astute are we to
discover—how more than ready are we to condemn—the faults of others. But when
we come to consider those which appertain to ourselves, as we believe, though
proceeding from the same common fountain, self-love, with its thousand
emissaries, rises up at the slightest alarm, and, armed at every point, stands
on the defence, ready to conceal, tolerate, excuse, justify, cherish, and
finally embrace them as part of ourselves, and to our own destruction.
And yet, that such spiritual agents are ever at work, and that they are most
potent,
rests upon the most undoubted testimonies of the Divine Word, upon the
principles of sound reason, and the sensible evidences of possessed persons,
which sceptical ignorance can neither cavil at nor deny. As to their power to
produce bodily diseases, no one who truly believes the doctrines taught
by the Evangelists and the Apostles, can possibly doubt. This theory,
notwithstanding Dr. Pond’s sneers about “ exorcism” and the “ materia me-
dica,” opens a wide and unexplored field for inquiry and investigation. The
true origin of diseases, and the peculiar healing properties of
medicines, and the rationale of their process of cure, are
subjects of vast importance to mankind, and merit the gravest consideration.
They are, to the profoundcst student and most eminent practitioner, matters of
acknowledged doubt and difficulty; and should the mystery that now surrounds
them be ever dispelled, it will not be by the dogmas of bigotry, or the scoffs
of ignorance.
I
must now conclude this long epistle. My object thus far has been to show that,
if the pschycological theory of the New Church be true (and upon this point the
Church has in vain called for an opponent), the accounts given by Swedenborg of
the phenomena of the spiritual world contain nothing to stagger our faith, if
we admit the opening of his spiritual vision. This simple fact being
admitted, the disclosures made must rest upon their own merits, free from the
prejudices of education and those false conceptions of time and space which wc
erroneously apply to that world and the things which exist in it. We rid
ourselves of the difficulties which our own misconceptions have produced, and
which most taxes our credulity, viz: the great distance of that world
from us—the unreality (if I might so express myself), and consequent invisibility
of its inhabitants—our own contradictions and confused ideas in respect to ourselves,
and of our true position and powers in regard to the spiritual and the natural
world. We correct the errors of eai-ly impressions and the delusions of our
bodily senses. We see that death does not deprive us of our faculties, nor
change us in ought save our outward relations; that the miscalled dead are
living substances in human forms, with human organs, appetites,
passions, and thoughts ; that the spiritual world, and heaven and hell, are not
far distant from us in the regions of space, but near to, and even within us ;
and that, as to our natural bodies, we need not to travel beyond the orbits of
the comets, to sec, to feel, and to perceive them. Wc discover that the faculty
of vision is within us, and that the objects of that vision
are also within ; and the only question that remains is, as I have said,
the simple one, was that faculty developed in Swedenborg during his life in
this world ? That the fact asserted is not beyond the capacities of
his nature—that it is consistent with the order of the Divine
Providence, and that it has been repeatedly exhibited in the cases of other
men, J think I have shown both from reason and Revelation. Whether it was
vouchsafed in his own case depends for credence on his own positive and
repeated declarations, and what is yet more reliable, the wonderful disclosures
of Truth, philosophical and religious, which arc contained in his works.
By these let him be judged. They are before the world. They seek no
concealment; they avoid no scrutiny ; they ask only to be heard in their own
defence. And they will be heard, in despite of the sneers, scoffs, and
misrepresentations of ignorant and bigoted sectaries.
I
must now leave you to notice in detail such of Dr.Pond’s cavilsand objections
as you may deem worthy of the labor. I do not consider them as justly entitled
to notice. The captiousness, illibcrality, and cant which distinguish them call
for commiseration, though they deserve contempt; and, but for the fact that
they may mislead the ignorant and injure the honest, they should be allowed to
pass to oblivion with the common stuff which such writers daily gender and cast
upon the earth.
With
sincere regard, I am, dear Sir, your friend and brother,
RICHARD K. CRALLE.
The preceding letter
will have informed the reader of the occasion of the present controversy; and
we would commend any one who may be willing to accompany us to the end, to an
attentive perusal of that, as a general preparative to a just estimate of the
succeeding argument. But, as some max- prefer to proceed at once to the
consideration of details, a few words of explanation will but facilitate our
movement.
It
is known to nearly all those who take sufficient interest in the fortunes of
Christianity to look beyond the pale of their own sect, that there is in this
country a class of Religionists, known to others as “ Swedenborgians,” but who
themselves profess to be of the “ New Jerusalem” or “ New Christian
Church,”—more briefly, “ The New Church.” An Encyclopzedia, a Theological
Dictionary, the statistical department of an Almanac, may have informed them of
thus much; otherwise, the solemn warning of an Orthodox religious newspaper
against the “ Errorists” of the day ; the sneer of some literateur who
affects superiority to “ credulity” or “ superst ition” in any of their forms ;
or the passing allwrion of some minute philosopher or all-wise physiologist,
who pretends to account for certain things out of the range of ordinary experience,
by “imagination”
or “optical
delusion,”
or some such phrase—will
have brought it to his knowledge. Though not numerous iu any particular
locality, as compared with some other denominations, they are so widely
dispersed over the Union, that he who is curious m such matters may have taken
note of some one or other of them personally ; and common rumor had perhaps led
him to anticipate no ordinary display of eccentricity. Witnessing nothing of
the kind in public, he concludes that such scenes, if exhibited at all, are
reserved for the stranger’s own domicil, or while observing the rites of his
religion. It may be, he has been told that the settled judgment of public
opinion is—that they arc the simple followers of a crazed enthusiast; that
their faith is too absurd to merit inquiry, far less refutation, from men of
sense; and that while the swelling throngs of other denominations give token
that this is not an irreligious age, the paucity of their numbers proves
the charge. Nevertheless, rhe delusion trill not die. Ever and anon some
new individual is smitten with it, and from a class of persons who are not
generally susceptible of such a disease as this is said t.obe. And his magazine
or newspaper tells him further, that this is true of other parts of the
country. If the inquirer has ever observed the operation of the sectarian
feeling, and reflects on the statements concerning an opposing creed, to which
such feeling is constantly prone; if he recollects, moreover3 that
public opinion is often made to order, and that from the character of the
article, it may sometimes readily be traced to the particular factory from
which it emanated,—he may not immediately concur in the justice of the above
judgment or reasoning. He determines, therefore, to observe the eccentric a
little more narrowly.
His
approaches to the stranger are not half way. The aspect of the latter is the
reverse of gloomy or morose. The quiet cheerfulness of his manner but ill
befits a fanatic. If, then, at times he appear unsocial, it may not be always
his fault. Being generally a person of some education, and more reading or
observation, he is discovered to be as well-informed on general subjects as
others of his station. He is more. The reproach of Gibbon against the early
Christians, touches not him. Though not neglectful of his private calling, he
takes an interest in the Commonwealth, and co-operates in his sphere for the
promo tion of civil and social good. Other things are learned, and with some
surprise. He aids in spreading the Bible, but seems not to have much faith in
the virtue of Evangelical Tracts. Perhaps he has taken the Tempcrancs pledge,
protesting, all the while, that if the Church in time past had done her duty,
this would now be a work of supererogation. Admiring the zeal which dictated
and sustains modern Missions to the Heathen, he cannot but think the results
are ill proportioned to the expenditure of life and treasure; and that, by this
time, their supporters should have discovered the real obstacles to success. If,
as often happens, there arc few or none in his vicinity, of like faith, he
sometimes attends the public worship of other Christians. Though otherwise
decorous in his deportment while there, he fails to join in certain of the
responses or other parts of the service : he does not appear to be much
edified with the discourse while in progress, or to unite in the general eulogy
afterwards. Even the declamatory eloquence of “ popular preachers” makes but
slight impression on him. He is unmoved at camp-meetings; nor can the utmost
exertion of spiritual terrorism or the most nicely-adjusted machinery, frighten
or decoy him to the confessional or “anxious bench.’’ True, he willingly accords
the respect which is due to the priestly function—but he takes the liberty to
judge the individual who exercises it, on his personal merits; nor is he so
overawed by the reputation of “ Doctors of Divinity,” as to accept their dicta
without examination. The simplicity, then, of which the observer had heard, is
not of that kind which renders its subject the dupe of every pretender,
clerical or other, who may endeavor to practise on it. And though this reputed
“ innocent” may at times have the air of one who is conscious of being
misconceived by others, unmanly complaint is rarely heard in turn. Another
thing which the inquirer learns, and not the least remarkable when we consider
the rest* less zeal of most sectaries in propagating their peculiar opinions,
is, that though evincing no ordinary degree of attachment to his own faith,
whatever it is, he does not get up a crusade against that of other people, or
intrude it on those to whom it is distasteful—being apparently willing that
these last “ should be happy in their own way that, while he is tolerant, or
conforms to custom in things indifferent, he has his own principles, to which
he rigidly adheres—being ever more exacting of himself than of others. Is he
then indifferent to the spread of what he professes to believe ?—or
secretly conscious that the public judgment is right, and that it is not worthy
of general acceptation? If so, why does he continue to adhere to an unpopular
faith, and flinch not from its defence on all proper occasions ?—for it is
said, that, however wedded to his opinions, he does not hold them as too sacred
for discussion. Or, is that other charge better founded, that this religion is
too abstruse for any but cultivated minds, and therefore can never be adapted
to the popular taste ? This can scarcely be ; for, besides that it is not very
congruous with the allegation of absurdity in the creed, and simplicity in its
holders, he is told that it is the mysterious ingredient in the ordinary
systems to which the new comer most especially objects.
All
this piques the curiosity of our inquirer, and determines him to resort for
satisfaction to the individual himself. Nor does he find him inacccessible, or
exclusive, as a fanatic would naturally be. For, the New' Churchman, while he
is prompt to repel the impertinent querist, or to shun the dealer in profane
raillery, holds himself in readiness to declare his faith, and the reasons for
it, whenever they are sought in a proper spirit.
The
former had already observed, that in public there was no wanton violation of
the conventional rules of society—and now, on nearer acquaintance, he finds the
same conformity in private. Like other Christians, this man acknowledges the
Bible as the guide of his faith and practice, and is perhaps quite as familiar
with its contents. His orisons, though brief, daily ascend from the circle of
his family, aided by a form, it may be, or else in extemporaneous accents, as
his preference may dictate; but, it is observed, they are exclusively addressed
to One who, in the devotions of others, stands rather as the medium than
the object of prayer. If he rather turns away from the numberless books
of piety in which his evangelical friends seem so much to delight, when they
have received the imprimatur of the proper authorities, it is because he
is furnished with others which yield him purer instruction and more unmixed
pleasure. What, then, is the peculiarity which causes him to be “
suspected” by his neighbors of a different faith ?
The
inquirer is not long to seek; for, w’hen but a few of the fundamental
principles of this faith are announced, he sees, at a glance, that they not
only diverge from, but necessarily exclude, the prevalent dogmas on the same
subjects. If the holder of them be sincere—and, while they disturb net his
self-possession, they seem to commend themselves with no ordinary force to
their votary—he cannot well co-operate or fraternize farther with those around
him. To one who is otherwise thoughtful, but who has imbibed the current
religious opinions of his country or friends without especial examination of
their merits, when a new system is offered for examination, certain prominent
objections spontaneously present themselves.- These are brought up in the
conference. The New-Churchman, though usually silent among noisy polemics, does
not refuse him a fair hearing. Being familiar with all the common places of the
Evangelical—for perhaps he has been one himself, or otherwise the nature of his
studies has brought him acquainted with their distinctive views and the
stereotyped arguments in their behalf—he has anticipated them all, and many
more w’hich may not have occurred to the objector. Some more formal and
authentic statement of this faith is requested. It is given. The inquirer is
struck with its simplicity and brevity—its seeming plausibility—the symmetry
and harmony of its parts—its apparent support from Scripture—and its marked
difference in some of these respects from most others. When he is farther
informed as to the rule of life of the respondent, and his test of
Christian character, the mystery which formerly hung over his conduct is
dispelled; he acknowledges that it is natural to one in his situation, and that
if this be a heresy, it must be vanquished by other arms than those with which
the sects encounter each other.
But,
whence was it derived ? He is informed, that it may be found, as its remoter
source, in the writings of a Swedish nobleman, who, in all the earlier part of
his manhood, was widely known as a practical statesman, a man of science and a
philosopher, and left numerous works of merit in those departments; but who for
many years prior to his death exclusively employed his pen on theological
subjects. The many volumes are ejpiibited ; their different classes and objects
explained : but, while the matter of them is intended for all time and all
grades of intellect, they were at first addressed to the learned,‘who must
themselves prepare and adapt it in different portions to the taste and wants of
the various orders of ability. Though this was necessarily a work of time,
something has been already done towards it, and more is in a state of
progress.
Does
Swedenborg reject this or the other tenet which is commonly held ? So d'oes
many a high authority among the Orthodox themselves. Does this or the other
part of his own system seem strange ? It may be true nevertheless., One long
habituated to the dungeon’s gloom, is disturbed when first re-admitted to the
glare of day. And the victim of Error, who has perhaps also yielded her his
veneration, may not immediately recognize the lineaments of Truth when first presented
to his notice. A process of disruption and crumbling in other systems is
manifestly going on. The progress of science, the changes in philosophical
theory—the improvements in Biblical interpretation—all show a tendency towards
this. The past history of the Church is not unknown to his followers. The present
state of Christendom is open to their survey. They are aware of what is taught
as- Christianity by different schools—and in reflecting on the compounds,
heterogeneous in themselves and conflicting with each other—have come
deliberately to the conclusion, that the truth has been lost to the Chureh,
and that it needs to be restored, if man is ever to attain theend of his being.
Having furthermore examine! the system which isoffered as replacing more than
was lost, they deliberately accept it as answering all the ends of such
restoration.
The
New Churchman is not, however, so sanguine as to suppose that this will be immediately
or generally apparent to the world. He adopted it freely himself; others must
do- the same. The reception which new truth has ever met with—and from those
whom it would most benefit—forbids the- hope that this will prove an exception;
and that the clergy should surrender without a struggle their dominion over the
opinions and consciences of their flocks, and subside into their proper
character of helpers of their feith and exemplars of conduct to their
brethren—would be a miracle great beyond all precedent. They would of course
regard any system which put them in the wrong as assuming a hostile attitude,
and therefore as a cause of internecine war; though the occasion of its declaration,
and the system of tactics to be adopted in its conduct, would depend on circumstances
yet to be developed.
Thus
far our inquirer has seen or hcavd nothing unnatural or impossible, and’nothing
to check his desire of farther information. He would willingly know something
of the past history of tins doctrine. It is freely imparted. He learns, that
during the last century, when all hope of speedily re-uniting the riven ranks
of Christians had abandoned the most sanguine:—at a sc:son of remarkable
religious declension, and when infidelity was rampant, these works were given
to the world. They were first offered to the Church authorities throughout
Protestant Europe as clearing up the-points which had occasioned all the
principal controvcr; iss among Christians, therefore as a ground on which they
might compromise their differences, and from whence to repel the common enemy.
The remedy, which if timely employed, might have restored efficiency to the
Church and health to the State, is rejected by the Clergy, and the disease is
permitted to spread. The consequence may be. recognized in that well nigh
universal' convulsion, which overthrew Church a id State, and whose
reverberations arc lengthened to our own day.
But
the doctrine was not lost in the general confusion. A few of the inferior
clergy and of the laity had recognized it as indeed a treasure which was thrown
among the careless crowd. They cherished it in private for years. At length it
is committed to thc- charge of a separate society authr rized to recruit the
ranks of its graduates and to preserve it through successive ages until the
world should be better disposed to give it a fair hearing. It has had its
vicissitudes, but thus far it has- been more than preserved. Established
churches have generally .fleeted a dignified silence re pecting this novel
species of “dissent.7* Perhaps they would not give it a factitious
importance by a formal notice and refutation,, and then the delusion might die
of itself; perhaps—“discretion was the better part of valor.’’ If,
notwithstanding, . hould come athwart the attenti >n cf some of their adherents,
not altogether coni it with things as they are, inquiry must be diverted by
pleasant allusions to “ the dre and reveries of the Swedish enthusiast,”
fortified with manur -red anecdotes, allaj^'ns. If this expedient did
not suffice, a storm of ridicule must be pou’-i I upon “the f-.llowcrs of a
madman.” The timid conscientiousness of weak brethren must be stirred up;
female delicacy alarmed; knowing shrugs, significant inuend s, and all the
lighter missiles of intrigue brought into requisition—to induce, if possible, a
s'is >icion of somctfi'pg—not simply absurd—but offensive to good morals, or
unfit for “ca:s polite.”
In
the ranks of Dissent it has had opponents, more open indeed, for they have
embodied their objections in a definite form—but not more scrupulous. With one
or two exceptions, these also have departed from the rules of all honorable,
not to say Christian controversy. In lieu of appeals to Reason or Scripture,
garbled quotation, caricature of the author’s views, addresses to sectarian
prejudice or ancient associations and such like small acts ot the
controversialist make up the staple of their books. But if this doctrine has
met with assailants, it has not been without its stalwart yet courteous
champions. Their several defences are extant; let the uncommitted judge if
they have been successful. Its friends have steadily increased through all
opposition—and the time is thought to be not very distant when the battle must
be waged on a higher and fairer field. Already and more than once has the
contest been carried into neighboring territory. Let them see to their own
position.
It
is now more than fifty years since this doctrine was introduced into the United
States. And here, as abroad, silence, raillery, satire, secret denunciation,
(sometimes ferreted from its hiding-places,) have followed in like succession.
Nor could they spell it away from this region. Then covert allusion to the
heresy from the pulpit, or an occasional article in a Newspaper or a Review
would indicate that something more decisive was required to check its advance.
Thus, it appears that substantially the same tactics have been employed here as
elsewere ; except that, seeing freedom of Religion is guaranteed to all, more
strenuous efforts have been needed to forestal public opinion ; and with a
like success. The indolent, the subservient to authority, have been content
that their judgments on this as on other subjects should take their color from
those of their leaders. The bigot has drawn on his cloak: the over-scrupulous
have been unnerved: the prudish startled. But all were not such. Some have been
found who were not to be frightened with bugbears, and dared to hail the ghost
which came before them in such a questionable shape. A brief trial of this
process enabled them to detect the fraud which had so long and so successfully
been practized on confiding innocence. In some instances the reaction was
proportional. Not only were they disabused of their prejudices—or indignant at
the calumnies which had been so sedulously propagated—by Christian people I and
Christian Ministers ! I—they had found the pearl of price elsewhere sought in
vain, and determined to cast in their lot with those who had so patiently borne
their reproach.
It
was intimated that the objections to this Church, from whatever quarter
proceeding, were of a very uniform cast—and that most of them were embraced in
her extant apologies. Our inquirer requests a sight of some of these. The
existing state of society, and the remaining strength of clerical influence
will readily account for the popular ignorance and misconception of its
character. The oral report of its leading principles had satisfied him that
they would rationally explain the supposed peculiarities of their holders. And
whereas he had then thought, that for the explosion of the system “ new
measures” must be adopted; he is now farther convinced, that, as zealously and
frequently as it has been assailed, its undermine or overthrow, if ever to be
witnessed, is an event yet to come.
It
is matter of common remark, that during the present generation, a renewed
interest in religious studies has been manifested both in Europe and America.
Within a few years this tendency has been marked by a wider range of inquiry
and a more exact scrutiny into the comparative merits of different systems of
Theology. More recently still, that of Swedenborg has been included in its
scope—and this has been followed by an accession to the number of his
disciples—and shall we say it—from the number of those who know whatsis to be
learned in other schools and who have too much self-respect to ally themselves
with ought that should justly derogate from their title to the regard of their
fellow-citizens.
It
was not to be supposed that the guardians of Orthodoxy—who had been so early
and uncompromising in their hostility, would permit this to pass unnoticed. The
signal for action ’was given. The campaign is opened by skirmishers who fired
their pieces from newspapers and magazines, charged—not indeed with very formidable
argument—but with loud lamentations of the degeneracy of the times—of the
apostacy of the hopeful— of the boldness of infidelity under the guise of
religion—and closing with warnings to the faithful against the insidious
approaches of heresy in its Protean forms, and of this in particular. But the
crushing blow, it seems was to be dealt by veteran hands. Two learned
professors of Theology—hailing from the most enlightened quarters of the
union—practised polemics, the reputed victors in many a field, seek the
encounter. The eldest of these has long been known as the respected incumbent
of a chair in the earliest and most celebrated Seminary of sacred learning in
America. Unlike his predecessors, he does not regard his antagonist as
altogether contemptible. He acknowledges that there are many excellent traits
to be found in him—some of which he would gladly imitate himself; but, bound as
he was to discriminate between these and others of an opposite character, not
to denounce the latter would be a dereliction of sacred duty. And he too was
met—by one of the “ apostates I” But again we say—let the candid, the
uncommitted public judge between them. To the general tone and temper of Dr.
Woods, in his Strictures, with a few flagrant exceptions, we have but little
to object. But we are admonished by past experience in similar cases, not to
hope from his magnanimity an acknowledgment of his numerous mistakes, clearly
as they have been pointed out by Prof. Bush.
The
other—but this brings us to Dr. Pond.
CHAPTER I.
SWEDENBORG.—THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF HIS READERS. TO WHICH OF THEM
DR. POND BELONGS. CHARACTER OF HIS ATTACK.
“
Swedenborgianism Reviewed,” is the title of a
work by Dr. Enoch Pond, Professor in the Theological Seminary at Bangor, Maine,
in which he undertakes to criticise what usually passes under that name. This
he had a perfect right to do. The works of Swedenborg are public property. His
public and personal character are matters of record. His pretensions as a man
of Science, as a Philosopher, and in the more important character of
Theologian, are before the world. His merits in each of these departments are
a fair subject of investigation I and, provided the inquiry has been properly
conducted, the result may be announced to the public without justly giving
offence to his followers. We are not aware that they have ever deprecated such
inquiry, or shunned a manly and honorable discussion of principles which they
hold forth to the world as true ; although intimations of their having shown an
undue sensibility on such occasions appear in this and other books which have
been written against them. Their own standing and claim to public regard as a
body of professing Christians may also be rightfully canvassed—nor could they
hope to escape animadversion themselves, if as a body they had done ought which
violated the proprieties of their profession. They only complain of having been
condemned without hearing; or that hostile and prejudiced reports have been
accepted as true without reference to the defence.
The philosophical writings of
Swedenborg since a short period after he ceased to write on such subjects, have
been but little known except to a few (some of whom, it is surmised, have
availed themselves of that circumstance for the purpose of plunder); but having
recently undergone an English version, have served to introduce his name to a
new class of readers. These views he did not profess to have derived from any
higher source than his own intellect, exerted in the ordinary mode, though
aided by the best lights of his time. And yet, notwithstanding the advance of
Science in the interval, the reports of their merits, by respected authorities in
their several kinds, have been almost uniformly favorable. Dr. P. however has
included them in the scope of his inquiries, and, as will appear, finds as
little to commend in the author in this as in other respects. We might question
the competency of the judge, but are willing to meet him here also.
But be his philosophy true or false,
complete or defective, that is not now the principal matter in question.
Emanuel Swedenborg was a theologian—and of no ordinary claim. Of high social
position—the reward of personal merit and services—of unstained morals and
exemplary piety—while honored for his various attainments, in the meridian of
life and the full vigor of intellect, he suddenly declares that he has been
supernaturally called to the discharge of a high and novel sacred function :
that this was rendered necessary by the state of the Christian World, which
through long centuries had been declining from truth and duty, and had now at
length reached its crisis : that it was nothing less than to restore the genuine
Christian doctrine w’hich had been lost to the church : to expound the
inner meaning of the Divine Word : to re-assert on new grounds the immortality
of the soul, and declare the nature and laws of the future world:—and that, not
as a personal privilege, but to enable him properly to discharge this
office, he was invested with a power similar to that of the prophets and
apostles of old—for nothing less would suffice—the power of spiritual vision
and consequent intercourse with those who had departed from this to the other
life. From thenceforth he abandoned all secular studies and active pursuits and
continued to the end of his protracted life to act in accordance with his
declaration.
His pretensions, strange and
astounding as they are, are thus stated at once in all their length and
breadth, knowing full well the reception they are like to meet with from
certain classes of mind—to several of which we will for a moment advert. The
bare statement of such a pretence in this age, will doubtless, in the opinion
of the majority, carry its condemnation on its face and stamp it as unworthy of
farther notice. With such we have no controversy: let them “pass by to the
other side.” Be it said to them in passing, however, “The political events of
tire last fifty years, which may be but the beginning of the end,” and the
religious history of the same period, have essentially modified the views of
some who were once as confident as yourselves. The first have satisfied them
that society cannot subsist without religion of some kind. Believing that
Christianity in the abstract is the best of religious, they ask to know
definitely “what it is ?” and yet the multiplication of sects in spite of the
increased study of the Bible, and the virulence of the sectarian feeling even
in this land of liberty, have gone far to convince them that here if any where
is “ nodus dignus vindice.”
An opposite class, though small, from
the first, were not so frighted from their propriety, by the startling claim,
as to refuse all hearing. Considerations such as those just mentioned, early
induced inquiry into the character and credentials of the messenger and the
purport of his message. Not having the fear of the -world, but their own
permanent interest and that of their fellowmen before their eyes, the inquiry
was honest, and the result, its acceptance as true. Their company has increased
and is increasing. Now if this be alia de. ;sion, the number of the deluded is
such as should naturally excite the compassion of the wise and virtuous and a
corresponding effort to rescue the victuns. But if, peradventure. the message
should after all be true, it is as much addressed to Dr. Pond and the
Evangelicals as to ns. And cither of these, if there were no other, would be a
sufficient reason for scrutiny. Refusal to inquire will tend to their
detriment. Weighing in a false balance cannot deceive the Seareher of hearts;
and deliberate rejection will beat their peril and ou their responsibility.
Accordingly there is a class by whom
the command “ to prove all things,” and "to try the spirits” is not so
easily evaded as by the first. A part of these as a salvo to conscience
may give it a cursory examination, but with a foregone eonelusiou that it
eannot be genuine. To such a disposition, the truth never was and never ean be
manifested ; and it is not surprising that these should return in
disappointment from an enterprise which was not so much as essayed by the
others. There is still another portion who will eoneede the possibility of
such a mission, and will profess a 'willingness to test the truth of the
message by its internal evidence, but are possessed by certahi fond opinions
early imbibed or long confirmed, whieh are held as unquestionable. These will
disclaim infallibility: acknowledge that truth is above all price : and that it
is desirable to have more than we already possess, if for no other reason than
its tendency to effeet a re-union of Christians. But when they find that the
admission of its validity would be attended with the casting down of these
cherished idols from their snrines, the test of fidelity is more than they can
abide; and the pretended welcome of such, after passing through various
gradations, may often result in open hostility.
Of such we verily believe is the
author of the book before us. Dr. Pond is of the communion of ‘I Orthodox” or,
as they are ealled in New England, “ Cal- vinistic Congregationalists,” and
subscribes to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Circumstances call his
attention to the principles of the New Church. He instinctively perceives that
they are irreconcilable with those he has inherited and which he teaches to his
pupils. He rejects them of course. Not content with repudiating for himself, he
desires to impress his opinion on others. He considers Swedcnborgianism to be anti-evangelical
in its character and influence, as much so perhaps as any system of error now
prevailing in the midst of ns. But as “ it is not understood,” and the works of
Swedenborg are not very “ intelligible" to his friends, something must be
done to counteract the efforts for its propagation. 11 It must be
thoroughly reviewed and canvassed,” “ ploughed up from the bottom.” And tliis
he accepts as his own special vocation. Now to all this we have nothing to
object. If his conclusions were unfavorable and honestly reached, he was
bound to discard the system; and to announce those conclusions to the public is
quite as natural in a Professor of Theology as in another. But as such an one
is presumed to know something of all systems, and moreover to be able to give
his reasons for rejecting those which differ from his own, something more will
be required of him than the bare annunciation of his judgment ex cathedra.
And nothing can exceed the apparent
fairness with which he enters on his task, according to his own account in his
preface. New Churchmen had com. plained that those who rejected the
peculiarities of their system were ignorant of the works in which they were
contained. “To the benefit of this apology” the Professor avers, “he is no
longer entitled.” (So much the worse for him, if true.) He collects the
principal theological works of Swedenborg and the chief productions of his
followers in which they have explained and defended his principles, with the
view of giving them “ an attentive perusal." It thus appears that
“ he has had the means of coming to a knowledge of the subject.” And
that his readers may see that this is no vague pretence he gives a list of them
in his preface. “ He had read nearly all the works of Swedenborg—that have been
translated—some of them several times. Of the works of his principal
commentators and apologists, he had read almost forty volumes. He had
studied and pondered them to his entire satisfaction." He had thus
gone to the best sources of information—had read not a volume on the other
side, and hideed could find none—a proof by the way that we have not mistaken
the policy pursued by our opponents. The result of all his reading and
reflection he imparts to his pupils in a series of letters—and to the public
in this little book.
“ And this too is well,” the reader
will say, “ and surely one who speaks after such preparation, must have
something important or formidable to deliver.” As it has turned out, it is even
very well. For he has hereby enabled us to judge of the reality of his
pretence. The means of knowledge he may have possessed, hut how did
he use them ? Take a few specimens. A particular tract of Swedenborg
happens to have a double title, and others have noticed that his perusal of it
was so very attentive that he has twice given it in his catalogue as if
it were two different works. And “ the worthy member of the New Church” who
loaned him several of the writings, informs us that all “ unintel- igible” and
“ unreadable” as they are, five volumes of the Arcana Cmlestia were despatched
by the Professor in a week! and that too without neglecting the ordinary duties
of his chair. The works of the second class contain by anticipation answers to
nearly all his cavils; and as he must have been conscious of this without very
deep study, it was more convenient to notice them here once for all., than to
canvass their arguments in the body of the volume. “ Oh that mine enemy had
written a book,” said Job. Thankful we are that our antagonist has written a
preface.
Coleridge is reported to have said,
that “ Frenchmen were like grains of gunpowder—each by itself smutty and
contemptible, but mass them together and they are terrible indeed.” Thus spoke
the prejudiced Englishman of those whom he is pleased to consider the “ natural
enemies” of his country. We quote the sentiment—not to endorse its truth, for
we regard it as flagrantly unjust and unworthy of its distinguished author—but
because it was forcibly recalled by Prof. Pond's book,—the first part of what
is there asserted being emphatically true of this. The book as a
whole, indeed, is not at all formidable to any one who is but tolerably
acquainted with the subject, because its constituent parts are
separately so weak and so easily overthrown; and with weapons furnished or
suggested by itself. For, a few puerilities excepted which seem never to have
occurred to any one except himself, it contains nothing—literally nothing
but what has been alleged and refuted over and over again. In the apologies included
in his list, the objections are fairly cited and honestly met, and a candid or
courageous antagonist would have directed his assault against those replies,
before he reiterated the charges.
And to what class of men in modern
times, is he indebted for the most conspicuous example of this honorable mode
of warfare I Let Doctors of Divinity say. “ Impudence and ignorance,”
says Bishop Home, “ may ask a question in three lines whieh it will cost
learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer; and when this is done, the same
question shall be triumphantly asked again die next year as if nothing had been
written on the subject.’’ And speaking of Bolingbroke's arguments against the
authority of Scripture. Dr. Young remarks, “They have been long sinee answered.
But he is not without precedent in this point. His repetition of already
refuted arguments seems to be a deistieal [m this case an evangelical]
privilege; from which few of them are free. Even echoes of echoes are to be
found among them, which evidently shows that they write not to discover truth but
to spread infection; whieh old poison readministered will do as well as
new, and it will be struck deeper into the constitution by repeating the same
dose. Besides, new writers will have new readers. The book may fall into hands
untainted before, or the already infected may swallow it more greedily in a
new vehicle, or they that were disgusted with it hi one vehicle may relish it
in another.’’ But his proceedhigs in this respect may perhaps be accounted for
hl another way. Our professor is “a man of system” and completely imprisoned by
that to which he adheres. He hears something of the doctrines of the New
Church, and sees that they are diverse from his own, which he has no thoughts
of relinquishing. While pretending to study the new system, he therefore does
not lend it a sufficient amount of tentative faith to survey it in its
full proportions and in all its comprehensive bearings. Far otherwise; he
brings with him his hypothesis ready made and searches for facts in its
support. And what is that hypothesis ? We simply mention it here, as it will
again be noticed 'when we eome across some of its pretended proofs. The moral
and religious character of Swedenborg throughout life could not be impugned
without exposing himself to the charge of ealumny. No probable motive could be
suggested for hatred to individuals or classes of men, or for his alleged
misrepresentation of their religious opinions. No selfish end was to be
promoted by the hypocritical or false assumption of the character in whieh he
professed to appear. To have assumed without sufficient warrant would have been
the height of blasphemy. His intelligence up to that period and on all other
subjects afterwards could not be disputed. And yet to justify Swedenborg in all
respeets would be to condemn him«elf. What then remained but the expedient so
agreeable to vanity—which does not disturb the bigot in his
self-complacency—but whieh he even dons as a cloak of charity,—the charge of “
insanity” or “ monomania.” The idea once conceived, everything whieh militates
against it is viewed with a jaundiced eye or must be suppressed from view. The
theory must be built up at all hazards, and everything whieh ingenuity can
mutilate, distort, or misplaee, must be employed in the fabric. No matter if
the same purpose has been essayed brothers before. No matter if some of the
materials have been condemned as worthless and dispersed to the winds, and the
rest restored to their proper place in the system. “ Evangelicals’’
are not aware of this.—and so “ the creature’s at his dirty work again.” Yet
hearken to the close of his preface. ’l If I am not entirely
deceived, the following pages have been written not in a spirit of hatred or
envy, but of love. I have aspersed no one’s character; I have
impeached no one's motives; I have assailed no one, living or dead, with harsh
and bitter words. If I have been under the necessity of publishing some
unpleasant things they are such as have grown directly out of the subject ; and,
of course, the fault is not mme. My single object has been to promote the
cause of truth and righteousness in the earth; and in aiming at this, I have
endeavored to treat all concerned kindly and fairly. The whole has been written
under a solemn sense of duty, and with continual prayer for the Divine
direction and blessing.’’ “ Ma Conscience !” wc involuntarily exclaimed on
recurring to this precious morceau after first running through the
volume, “could this have been written before or after the completion
of the book ! Many and fierce have been the conflicts of religious parties in
this generation: various the weapons and often unscrupulously used ; but rich
as our country is in specimens, and many of them as we have witnessed, we do
not remember ever to have seen the parallel of this. Can the writer have hoped
to deceive the most prejudiced of his readers by this thin veil of Pharisaism 1
Or, blinded by the intensity of his theological hate, had he actually deceived
himself?’
CHAPTER II.
DR. POND'S WORK, STILL FURTHER CHARACTERISED.—PERVERSIONS OF
THE HIS-
TORY OF SWEDENBORG'S LIFE.
But the spirit of the book is not
immediately manifested. An appearance of candor, so far as depends on marks of
quotation and reference to authority is kept up throughout. The page fairly “
bristles with inverted commas.’’ But it requires only a slight knowledge of the
wiles of controversialists to satisfy the wary reader that never is truth more
effectually suppressed or falsehood more artfully suggested than under such a cloak.
A conciliatory tone pervades one or two of the early chapters, only a few
discordant notes being heard. Important concessions are made ; but an incident
is exaggerated here—-suspicion insinuated there. The reader having thus tasted
of what is set before him— and at first finding nothing very repulsive—(what
might have been so to a healthy palate is perhaps suited to his
idiosyncrasy)—is lured on to partake more largely. Only a few drops of gall arc
at first infused. As his taste becomes farther vitiated the quantity is
increased, until towards the close the power of discrimination is lost, and the
venom is poured in without scruple and almost without disguise.
Thus we have in the first Chapter a
slight sketch of some of the leading incidents in the life of Swedenborg. We
are told that he was respectably descended, and honorably connected ; reared
in the bosom of piety and carefully educated: that he was ever a diligent
student and made large acquisitions in various branches of exact and useful
knowledge : that he was a voluminous and approved writer on such subjects: that
he was a frequent and extensive traveller—and at such times a close observer of
whatever could add to the fund of his materials for reflection : that he was
early called to a post of honor
51 ed and usefulness whieh he filled
to the satisfaction of all concerned, and receiv from his sovereign a fitting
reward of his fidelity in an increase of his dignity. Thus much was necessary
for the information of the reader and could not be denied without contradicting
all contemporaneous evidence. But even here he has contrived to suggest
inferences from a few facts, themselves very natural, which they will not
fairly yield, and which, when duly expanded, are afterwards called to the
support of his grand theory. A few words will suffice for the correction of
each.
Swedenborg had said that from early
childhood his thoughts were much absorbed by sacred themes, and that he often
conversed with the clergy on the nature of - faith and charity"—but that
he was providentially “kept back from reading dogmatic and systematic theology,
by reason that unfounded opinions and inventions might have insinuated
themselves "which with difficulty afterwards had been extirpated.’’ And
this the Reviewer thinks “ "will serve to account for the fact that in
after years his knowledge of such Theology was not more accurate—to which we
may add—as also for the fact that he never became the dupe of Evangelicals.”
And has the Reviewer never heard of “ the difficulty of unlearning errors ?” If
not—we can tell him that some of his readers would not want a better
exemplification of the principle than himself. But is it true that
Swedenborg,was unfurnished with the learning necessary to a correct
interpretation of the Scriptures ? We have but to adopt the reply of iniother
when the doubt was suggested long ago. “ By1 dogmatic and systematic
theology’ he meant such as is contained in the Formula Concordia, and
the numerous bulky works supporting the doctrines of that book. Will [Dr. Pond]
say that the study of these or of similar works in exposition of Roman cr<
eds are the likeliest means of supplying the knowledge required for that
purpose ? . . . Will he affirm, that a man of the attainments which he allows
Swedenborg to have made,—a man who after being religiously brought up by his
father (a pious bishop according to the piety of that tune, and author of many
religious books)—who had gone through the course of study pursued by men of
science and literature at the University of Upsal—who had afterwards added the
study of the Hebrew language, and who had been a diligent reader of the
Scriptures through his "whole life; that such a mau as this should be
ignorant of any essential part of that knowledge which is required for the
right interpretation of the Bible ? Could he be less qualified for such a task
by the studies which he had pursued, than Luther by his occupations in the cell
of his monastery?”—Int. Rep. 3d S. II. 475.
Swedenborg in his youth wrote poems,
and it was remarked by a surviving friend that he excelled in them, as in
whatever else he attempted. Our reviewer can readily believe this, and,
slurring over the science and philosophy which flowed from his more practised
pen, insinuates that Imagination was his strongside, “ as is evident
from many of his theological writings.” Swedenborg was a mau, and in early
manhood bestowed his affections on a young lady, the daughter of his friend and
patron by whom his suit was favored. The feeling was not immediately reciprocated
by the lady—and when assured that it probably would not be, although he had
been betrothed, he resigned his pretensions and determined in favor of a single
life as better fitted to one of his pursuits. True he never again wrote or
spoke of the affair so far as is known from his own writings or those of any of
his friends—though he was ever pleased -with female society and respectful to
the sex. But more than half a century after his death, a document is exhumed,
on the strength of which it is reported, that to a stranger who called on him
in reference to his remarkable gift, he once mentioned his early love in a
tone of pleasantry; as also that he informed her surviving children, in answer
to similar special inquiry, “ that he couhl converse with their departed
mother whenever he choseand this is the solitary allusion to the matter in any
paper which has come down to us. Nevertheless, this Reviewer has discovered
that “ the impression was never lost from his heart" and that it colored
all his speculations on such subjects.
When Count Hdpken said that Swedenborg
“detested metaphysics,” he meant such metaphysics as were then current and
usually taught in the schools of the Materialist, the Idealist, and the
Sceptic. But that he altogether refrained from such studies is the reverse of
the truth. False metaphysics he believed to be pregnant with infinite
mischief to morals and religion; and who that will look around him at the
present day or recal the history of the past age will be found to deny it ? He
rejected the spurious science, but believed that there was a true philosophy of
the mind, and that when discovered it would appear not as the adversary, but as
the handmaid of Religion. He had traversed the realms of nature, searching
them with curious eye, and now aspired to the higher knowledge of the soul. It
was indeed the scope and end of all his inquiries, but as the usual guides were
incompetent, he became the pioneer himself. He believed that as the soul dwelt
in the body, an acquaintance with her should first bo. sought by the paths of
Anatomy and Physiology. Before his day this route had been too much neglected,
though it has been much explored since. In the “Introduction” to the “ Animal
Kingdom,” he alludes to certain new doctrines which he thinks he has
established, and which constitute a part of the new method by which he hoped
ultimately to complete his philosophical theory and thus be introduced to her
whom he had so faithfully and diligently sought. “ All very natural,” the
reader will say, “ in a philosopher who would not have his speculations
for ever bound down to earth: and the surest method of rearing a solid fabric,
as distinguished from the aircastles of his predecessors, was to lay a broad
foundation of Science.” Our Bangor Professor, however, who quotes the eloquent
though modest passage in which he announces his intentions and hopes,
ingeniously suggests that “ this indicates in what channel the thoughts of
Swedenborg were now miming;” decides that the connexion between the soul and
the body is not only mysterious but “ inscrutable,” and thinks that this is
the direct road to madness.
The pursuit was followed up in
this direction and a point attained
which no philosopher had ever reached before. The results are embodied in a work
which, if he had written nothing more, should be regarded as the crown of all
mental effort; and he might have sat down in complacency as one who was
conscious of having paid “ the debt which every man owes to his profession.”
But while contemplating the gathered fruits of all his toil, and applying the
principles which he had developed, he suddenly paused and declared to his
friends that he was called to other and higher duties, for the proper performance
of which he had been specially gifted as related above. Swedenborg's own
account of this extraordinary event in letters to his friends is brief and
modest. Those in his published works are sometimes accompanied with solemn
asseverations of its truth: and in his letter to the king of Sweden he declares
his willingness to attest the same “by the most solemn oath that can be
administered.” Dr. P. has quoted the more detailed statement given by Robsahm
in his Anecdotes. He probably knew that this was reported from memory after the
lapse of years and that its accuracy in some respects is doubted by many
intelligent New Churchmen. But it suited his purpose to assume it as genuine
because it embraced a few particulars which were susceptible of perversion.
The narrative is as follows : . “ I was in London, and one day dined rather
late by myself, at a boarding house, where I kept a room, in which at pleasure,
I could prosecute the study of the natural sciences. I was hungry, and ate with
great appetite. At the end of the meal, I remarked that a vapor, as it were,
clouded my sight, and the walls of my chamber appeared covered with frightful
creeping things, such as serpents, toads, and the like. I was filled with
astonishment, but retained the full use of my perception and thoughts. The
darkness attained its height, and soon passed away. I then perceived a man
sitting in the comer of my chamber. As I thought myself entirely alone, I was
greatly terrified; when he spoke and said, ‘ Eat not so much.’ The cloud once
more came over my sight, and when it passed away, I found myself alone in the
chamber. This unexpected event hastened my return home. I did not mention the
subject to the people of the house, but reflected upon it much, and believed it
to have been the effect of accidental causes, or to have arisen from my
physical state, at the time. I went home ; but in the following night, the same
man appeared to me again. He said, ‘ I am God, the Lord, the Creator and
Reedemer of the world. I have chosen thee to lay before men the spiritual sense
of the Word. I will teach thee what thou art to write.’ On that same night,
were opened to my perception the heavens and the hells,where I saw many
persons of my acquaintances, of all conditions. From that day forth, I gave np
all mere worldly learning, and labored only in spiritual things, according to
what the Lord commanded me to write. Daily he opened the eyes of my spirit to
see what was done in the other world, and gave me, in a state of full -
wakefulness, to converse with angels and spirits.” From this account the Reviewer
would have us infer that Swedenborg's brain was disordered by excessive thought
attended by over indulgence of appetite. But the statement must be accepted as
a whole or not at all. Though the stranger appeared unexpectedly, the Seer
declares that he retained the full use of his perception and thoughts: and that
the first address of the Being was a warning against such indulgence. We are
not told that lie fell into the same imprudence. A different inference is
probable, for the stranger re-appeared on the following night and gave him his
solemn commission, and “ from that day forth he gave up all mere worldly
learning and labored only in spiritual things.”
The Reviewer may have surmised that
this of itself would not be regarded by all his readers as sufficient proof of
insanity, and therefore couples it with another incident which he would have
them believe was anterior to that just related. But let him speak for himself.
“While the thoughts of the author were occupied in the manner here indicated—while
‘ with the most intense application of mind, he was endeavoring to reach and
investigate the soul, through the medium of the body,’he was arrested, in the
city of London, by a severe attack of fever, attended with delirium. The fact
of this sickness has been called in question; but not, as it seems to me, with
sufficient reason. Mr. Wesley speaks of it repeatedly and expressly, but I do
not now rely on his testimony. The celebrated Dr. Hartley was a cotemporary of
Swedenborg, his intimate personal friend, and one of his earliest followers. He
also speaks of Swedenborg's sickness and delirium,and justly complains that
what he said and did in those circumstances should be reported to his
disadvantage. The probability is, that this sickness occurred near the close of
the year, 1744, or early in the following year.” “The probability
is!”—According to the ethics of the Reviewer then, the man’s reputation for
sanity may be impeached by the probability of a date which ought not
seriously to affect it, if it could be established. But Pond’s whole theory is
mainly based on this fact and the alleged time of its occurrence; and in order
to produce the desired impression he has deliberately falsified the record I
We say “ deliberately,” for witnesses and references and dates are sometimes
dangerous things to those who trifle with the truth. Dr. Hartley speaks as
follows: “He was seized with a fever, attended with delirium, common in that
case, about twenty years before he died, and was under the care of a
physician; and they have gone about to pick up what he said and did, and how he
looked at the time, and have propagated this both in private and in print; a
proceeding so contrary to common humanity, that one cannot think of it without
offence, nay, even horror: but there is not the least occasion for a particular
answer to so malignant a charge, as it receives its full confutation from the
consistency and wisdom of his numerous publications before and since that
time.'" Now this passage is cited in Noble’s Appeal and referred to
by Pond in a note. Mr. Noble moreover gives very probable reasons for doubting
the truth of the story altogether, to which we would refer the reader, although
the Reviewer has failed to notice them. But he has convicted himself. He tells
us that Swedenborg lived about twenty-seven years from the period of his
illumination (p. 21); and that he died in 1772 (p. 35). Dr. H. his chief
authority, dates the fever “ about twenty years" before his death.
This would fix it to the year 1752, about eight years after the period
assigned by the Reviewer. Thus he has antedated an event some eight years in
order to find a foundation for his hypothesis ! Most becoming conduct in a
Puritan, a professor of Theology, a preacher of the gospel of Truth, who is moreover
an author and a polemic, and who would fain be regarded as an honest and
honorable opponent!
Others have significantly asked,
whether in case of a fever attended with delirium, it is usual for the former
to pass away and the latter remain I We suppose it was the habit of Swedenborg
“ to think intensely.” With all his powers and without intense thought he could
not have so astonished his contemporaries : nor would the fruits of his
literary labor have been either in quantity or quality what we now find them.
But if his brain had been overwrought, the effect should have corresponded
with the pretended cause. Was it ever before heard of that a man by hard
thinking on philosophy went mad on Religion ?* The insane are
prone to harp on the cause of their insanity. After this period however,
Swedenborg spoke and wrote but little on philosophy and much on religion, of
which, so far as we know, he had said but little, and wrote next to nothing
before. Dr. P. repeats the account of one who knew him—that “ when he appeared
abroad his dress and manners were those of a gentleman of the old
school."' And were these very like those of a madman ? Thus much for
the first lesson on this head. The second will be forthcoming anon.
Swedenborg had laid down the following
excellent and comprehensive rules for the regulation of his conduct. “ 1. Often
to read and meditate on the Word of the Lord. 2. To submit everything to the
will of Divine Providence. 3. To observe in everything, a propriety of
behavior, and always to keep the conscience clear. 4. To discharge with
fidelity, the functions of my employment, and the duties of my office, and to
render myself, in all things, useful to society.” Ou which the Reviewer
remarks, “ If Swedenborg lived up to these rules he must have been {what all
history represents him) a moral, useful, and to some extent, a religious
man.” Now we desire the reader especially to bear these concessions in mind as
we may have occasion to recur to them in the course of our progress. Whether
Swedenborg was also “ a man of prayer” we shall inquire in the proper place.
Nor is it true that he never went to church. In general his spiritual calling
occupied him on Sabbath as on other days, but he did occasionally attend
(though but little edified by the ministrations), lest his example should be
pleaded by others for their delinquency, who had more leisure. He moreover
received the Communion on his death-bed from a Lutheran minister.
Again. Dr. P. says, “A report was
circulated, that he renounced his peculiars claims and opinions, during his
last sickness ; but this was not true. So far from it, he affirmed, in the most
solemn circumstances, and with the greatest earnestness, ‘ Everything that
I have written is true. I might have said much more, had it been permitted
me. After death, you will see all.’ After such a declaration, whatever other
opinion is formed respecting him, it can hardly be doubted that he was
sincere.” To which we will append but a single qnery. If Swedenborg was a “
gentleman of the old school,” a “ learned.” “ moral,” “religious” and
“sincere” man, and your proof of his insanity has utterly failed, on what
ground do you refuse to accept him as a Messenger of Christ ?
*“
We have sometimes heard Evangelical preachers exhort those who, as they said,
were spoilt by Philosophy, to betake themselves to the study of the
Scriptures as a corrective; but here, the remedy proposed must have confirmed
the disease.”
In the “ Preliminary Letter” of our
friend, the possibility of spiritual vision and consequent intercourse with the
inhabitants of the spiritual world is based on considerations drawn from the
nature of that world : from the constitution of man, and especially from the
nature of the human soul: from its connexion with the source of life : from its
presence in that world, and association (however unconscious) with its
denizens, simultaneously with its sojourn in the body. And then surely that is
possible which has actually occurred. Repeated instances are given by him
from ancient and modem annals, from the sacred Scripture, and the history of
the Church fortified by the authority of its venerated Fathers and most
approved writers. It will be acknowledged as desirable in the abstract that an
immortal being should have some knowledge of that region which is to be its
own ultimate and permanent home. We might also infer that Ly the proper
exercise of such a gift many doubts and vexed questions which have harassed
the sincere Christian and disturbed the peace of societies might be removed or
settled. If there had never been a case of spiritual vision, how came it ever
to be believed at all ? Credulity itself must have facts as its remote
foundation. If this principle of human nature has been abused by Pagan
priesthood, by Romanists, and fanatics of various type, shall it therefore be
denied and discarded altogether ? As well reject every sacred truth which is
capable of being perverted to the purposes of spiritual tyranny or selfish
ambition. Until then, Dr. P. and his coadjutors shall give us some better
reason than their proverbial cant of “ the age of miracles has ceased,” &c.
we shall persist in demanding to know by what authority they would limit the
exertion of this faculty to a particular age.
Swedenborg asserted that he was
permitted for good ends to exercise during many years a power inherent in all,
but providentially and wisely suspended with men in general, as being liable to
dangerous and gross abuse. At several times during his life his
professed power was put to the test by persons who disbelieved its possibility,
or were incredulous in his case. In no instance was he found wanting. They were
first reported—not by himself or followers —but by others who did not admit his
pretensions; courtiers, literati, professors of philosophy, men in various
walks of active life. Their truth could not be gainsayed. In one case, an event
is declared as actually taking place at a distance of three hundred miles, and
his declaration known to a whole city before the description is verified in
every particular by subsequent intelligence. The accounts of these remarkable
occurrences are collected by his followers from their different sources with
the testimonials by which they are avouched and for what? as authenticated miracles
I No. As proof of the truth of his doctrines ? Again, no! their positive
truth depends on other considerations; but as evidence that he possessed a
gift, the same in kind with that he claimed in his writings, and which, if duly
exercised for a sufficient length of time, would have furnished him with the
materials for all the memorable relations recorded in his works. This
Reviewer however thinks these “ stories” are not more remarkable than the
accounts of “clairvoyants,” “ soothsayers,” &c. which are so common at the
present day and some of which he relates himself. Thus he tells us of a dealer
in marvels who was “ affrighted” at his own success, and “relinquished it in
sorrow and disgustof another who, although deranged and confined, told wonders.
And can Dr. P. account for these things by his own philosophy I To multiply
mysteries is not to solve them. Did those men set up as religious teachers I
And if they had, did he ever learn that Swedenborg was “ affrighted” by
his experience or that he abandoned his pursuit. Now, even if the
Scripture had not already given us a test for distinguishing the veritable seer
from a false prophet, several of the books in his list might have satisfied him
that there was a wide difference between Swedenborg and any “ clairvoyant.”
And, be it remembered, “ all history” attests that he was, not an
adventurer, but “a gentleman,” and moreover “moral, religious and sincere.”
Verily our Professor must have been in sad straits at this juncture. Because
such tilings are “ unaccountable” to him, he thinks they must be equally so to
others: and seeks to convict New Churchmen of inconsistency in their attempts
to explain Swedenborg's state while in the spirit. “ Mr. Hobart thinks, ‘ that
Swedenborg can in no wise be compared with the ancient prophets.’ Mr. Noble and
Air. Bush hold, that ‘ the psychological condition of the prophets was
substantially the same' as his. While Dr. Hartley decides, that ‘he was
endued with heavenly gifts, beyond any of the prophets that preceded him.'
If the receivers of his doctrines cannot settle this question among themselves,
I shall not now undertake to decide it for them.” Whatever mystery may have
formerly attended such cases, it need exist no longer. The general tenor of his
psychology and numerous passages of his writings bearing on this very point, as
known to his followers, have removed it finally and for ever. Nor is there any
contradiction here, although there is room for difference of opinion as to the
relative importance of their different functions. Swedenborg’s state was
Zz&e that of the prophets, in that the spiritual sight of both was
opened. It differed in that they were either the rapt, unconscious
organs of the divine influx, or the simple mediums of announcing or writing “
the Word of God.”
Swedenborg’s
rational mind was illuminated by the Lord as a spiritual Sun to
perceive the true meaning of what the Prophets and Evangelists had
written, and which was not fully known to them. But while he had a conscious
perception of the source of his illumination, he was measurably left to the
use or his own powers of explanation, disciplined and furnished as they had
been by previous training and knowledge. Some may think it a greater privilege
to be the instruments of recording the Word of God : others may more highly
esteem the gift of understanding and explaining it to mankind. We defer our
remarks on the Reviewer’s extracts from our Author's treatise on tire “ Earths
in the Universe” which “ he knew not where else conld be introduced so
well” as in his first chapter, until we come to consider the matter of
Swedenborg’s Revelations concerning the spiritual world. As some preliminary
explanations was necessary to their being properly understood, it is not the
Reviewer’s fault if the class of readers to whom he professed especially to
address himself should not have their prejudices thus early confirmed
and thence view with suspicion all that followed.
In his second chapter he has copied
entire the lesser “ creed" offered by Swedenborg as containing the
essence of Christian doctrine; as also the “ twelve Articles” set forth by the
New Church in England and adopted by their brethren in. America as embracing a
more enlarged summary of our faith. It must be owned that this distance of
fairness, so strongly contrasting with the greater part of the book, was not
observed by us without our special wonder. We thank hun moreover for the same,
as it will aid us in refuting the captious cavils by whieh here and elsewhere
he has endeavored to throw dust into the eyes of the reader. But this also we
must postpone until his more particular objections to the doctrines shall pass
under review, and pass at once to his “ Objections to the Claims of
Swedenborg.”
CHAPTER III.
DR. POND'S OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS OF SWEDENBORG
CONSIDERED.—THE
ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES WEIGHED.
“ In
deciding upon the claims and the doctrines of Swedenborg, I agree with
Professor Bush, that the first and principal question relates to the fact of
his supernatural illumination. Did he actually converse with spirits and
angels ? Was he immediately instructed by the Lord himself ? Did he, in fact,
receive revelations from heaven ? If so, then whatever he taught must have been
worthy of its Author, Divinely true, and is to be regarded as the voice of God
to men. There is no resisting this conclusion, and we have no desire to resist
it. But then there is another conclusion, equally resistless, and most
intimately connected with it. If it can be shown that Swedenborg taught much
that is unworthy of God, untrue, not in accordance with reason, Scripture and
fact; then he could not have received his instructions from the Lord, and his
credit as a supernatural teacher, a revealer of heavenly things, is destroyed.”
Be it so—we accept the wager, and await the proofs. We do more—we retort the
charge; and if we do not prove his own doctrine to be unworthy of God and
abhorrent to the reason and moral instincts of man we will consent to yield the
question.
His first objection to
“Swedenborgianism” is that “it professes to supersede the Gospel
Dispensation, and to introduce a new dispensation, as distinct from it, and
superior to it, as that is superior to the Jewish and asks for “proof of the
same from the literal sense of the Word.” From the boldness of this demand,
the reader to whom the subject is novel might suppose that it had never been
met. Yet proof sufficient may be found in the predictions of the old Prophets
which have not been and are not like to be fulfilled by the first Christian
Chureh without an entire change of its doctrines and spirit: and lies on the
surface of the New Testament, where the decline of this Church and the
necessity of its being succeeded by another are expressly foretold. This evidence
is collected by Swedenborg and is expounded in various parts of his writings,
and forms the subject of a separate chapter in his chief doctrinal work “The
True Christian Religion.” It is also the subject of Sec. II. of Noble’s
Appeal; and portions of it are frequently cited in other works of the Chureh.
Our Reviewer however with his usual courage and honesty passes it over. Our
space will not permit us to quote the whole of the evidence; but, after having
premised a few explanatory reflections, we will produce enough to show that we
are not without warrant for the assertion.
The earth was created that it might
become the perpetual Seminary of Heaven. The term “ Church” as used in
Scripture is of various signification. The Church in general includes
all those in time past, present and to come who acknowledge one God and obey
his commands. In this sense and in the view of the Lord the Church is one. But
within this general body are included various successive and particular
churches, as the Primitive or most Ancient, the Patriarchal, the Jewish, the
Christian. And why ? The essential principles which constitute a man are
Freedom and Reason. Without either of these he would not be a responsible being
and could not make a church at all; for the Father of all desires only a
reasonable and voluntary service. But with them man cannot be a stationary
being; for when properly used they elevate the character and lead to higher
attainments, but they are also, and of necessity, liable to abuse. Man then,
both as an individual and as a whole must be either a progressive or degenerating
being. Unhappily, the past history of our race proves that he has too often and
too generally taken the downward road, and that if his Understanding has been
gradually raised, his Will has not always followed in a corresponding degree.
But lest he should altogether defeat the ends of his creation, by first
repudiating and then forgetting the knowledge which was essential thereto,
instruction suited to his various states has been successfully provided by
Infinite Wisdom and Goodness. When he “ walked with his God” in innocence and
simple obedience the truth was impressed on his mind by a sensible internal
dictate, or he read it in outward Nature, whose expressive characters were
then understood. Such was the Church of the primitive ages. When he began to “lean
unto his own understanding” and thereby had forfeited his early privilege as
no longer suited to such presumption, the knowledge necessary to his reform was
committed to writing, but in that parabolic style which was the spontaneous and
vernacular tongue of his ancestors; and such were the sacred books of the
Patriarchal times. But by dwelling too much on outward objects or stopping
short at second causes, the primitive faith was farther corrupted and man fell
into idolatry. To preserve that doctrine which is at the foundation of all true
religion—the doctrine of the Unity of the Deity—a particular family was set
apart: afterwards expanded into a nation and furnished with a peculiar polity
and separate territory: its history as a people and a state recorded by divine
dictation; which history with its accompanying documents should contain within
itself instruction that, when duly explained, would be adapted to all
succeeding time, and the various races of men. The truth was thus put in an
imperishable form and preserved through many vicissitudes. Thus as the second
had been a Representative Church before it degenerated, the Jewish was
the Representative of a Church. And this it might very well be without
understanding the purport either of what they repeated or what they enacted.
That they did not understand it, is evident from the fact that when
their Church came to an end by the Incarnation, they had not only become
apostate as a nation, but “ had made the word of God of none effect through
their traditions.’’
Our Incarnate Lord gathered his
disciples and gave them instruction. But did they fully apprehend his meaning 1
Far otherwise, they often stumbled at his “hard sayings,” and he as often
reproved them for “ not understanding his word.” At length he tells them, “I
have many things to say unto you,but ye cannot bear them now. . . The time
will come when I will shew you plainly of the Father" (John xvi. 12,
25). Is there any mention in Scripture that that time had arrived I “Jehovah
shall be King over all the earth: in that day Jehovah shall be one, and his
name One," says the prophet Zechariah (xiv. 9). Has that day arrived
as yet, or is it likely to arrive under the auspices of the Christians now in
the ascendant 1 The ehureh of Christ was founded : it was provided that a part
of his words and acts should be recorded for her use : and he exhibited to the
prophetic vision of his beloved disciple the future fortunes of that church.
Though a commencement was made and proper means employed to reform the religious
aspect of the world, a change so great could not be immediately effected. Ages
would probably elapse before man would retrace the steps which had led him to
his present abyss of degradation. And it is because man is free that
moral and religions revolutions, if for tire better, must needs be gradual.
When our Lord, on their referring him
to the magnificence of the Jewish Temple, announced to his astonished disciples
that “the time would come when not one stone would be left upon another” (Matt,
xxiv.), What did he mean 1 Shall we answer with one school of
interpreters that “ he simply alluded to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus
1” That cannot be, as is proved by his subsequent discourse on the Mount of
Olives, in which he declares that the dread events and appearances there
enumerated shall be followed by the consummation of the age and his
own second coming. And that the disciples were deceived both as regards the
nature and time of his “ second coming” is now generally acknowledged. Shall we
follow the guidance of another class who say that in that discourse he refers
to the final Judgment and “ destruction of the world 1” And these also are at
fault; for, besides that the perpetual duration of the earth is elsewhere
clearly taught, our Lord speaks of some who “ in that day shall be taken and
others left” (verses 40,41). What could he have designed to tcaeh but the
decline and consummation of the Church he was then about to found ? Its
degeneracy was also foretold by Paul and Peter, Jude and John (Acts xx. 29; 2
Thess. ii. 3, 56; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 2; 2 Pet. ii. 1, 30; Jude 17, 18: 1 John iv.
3): is noticed as having already appeared in various phases, in the early
chapters of Revelations: is traced on that prophetic page through its several
gradations to the final usurpations and corruptions of the modern Babylon, and
the opposite though equal errors of the Protestants, until the view is relieved
by a brighter prospect beyond. For Jolin at length “ saw a new heaven and a new
earth : for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there
was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from
God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a
great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with
men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself
shall be with them, and be their God. And he that sat upon the throne
said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words
are true and faitliful.”
Isaiah had predicted (Ixv. 17) that
“new heavens and a new earth” would be formed on the coming of Messiah. As this
language was not literally fulfilled then, we need not expect it at his second
coming. But the prophetic style is beginning to be better understood than
formerly; and we could call evangelical authority to back us, when we say that
these words denote important revolutions in religion and in faith. Every body
knows that by “Jerusalem” in Scripture is meant iUhe Church.'" Of
course the New Jerusalem means a new Church. And that this does not
refer to the church in the heavens, may be inferred from the fact that this
Church was seen “ coming down from God out of- Heaven; . . the
tabernacle of God with men; . . and that all
things should be made new.”
To say with this Reviewer that the passages he quotes from the prophets
refer to the first Christian Church is begging the question.
Swedenborg, as we think, has shown good reason for applying them to the New
Christian Church which is here specially foretold, and which will be the
“enlarged, purified and exalted” body of whieh they speak. It thus appears that
we have the literal authority of Scripture for our assertion. That the
degeneracy and final ruin of the first Christian Church might have been anticipated
from the then state of human nature, and that farther Revelations would have
been ultimately required even if it had continued faithful, and still more to
repair the ravages produced by her apostaey, we propose to show hereafter.
The second objection to the claims of
Swedenborg herein urged, is, that they are “not sufficiently attested.”
Revelations worthy of our acceptance, he thinks, (1.) Should be confirmed by “
two or three witnesses (2.) Must be consistent with themselves and'involve no
absurdities: (3.) The testimony offered, if false, should be open to detection
: (4.) Must be confirmed and not contradicted by other evidence : (5.) Should
be supported by miracles.
It will be time enough to consider the
second and fourth tests when it is proved that the revelations of Swedenborg
fail to abide them. The Reviewer has certainly attempted this feat, but his
wretched failure will appear ere long. So first we demand to know, by what
authority he determines that alleged Revelations should always be attested by “
two or three witnesses at least 1” Certainly not that of Scripture. The text
eited in proof is wholly inapplicable. It was a rule of Jewish Criminal Law,
enjoined also by our Lord in case of disputes among brethren, and by
the Apostles in the discipline of offenders (See Num. xxxv. 20; Deut.
xvii. 6; xLx 15; Matt, xviii. 16; Heb. x. 28; 2 Cor. xiii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 19),
and has nothing to do with the credibility of a Revelation. Much the greater
number of divine or angelic manifestations recorded in Scripture were made to
but one person at a time—though not for his benefit alone. Which of the
seventeen prophets whose writings constitute so large a part of the Old
Testament ever called upon another as a witness to the truth of his Revelations
1 Some of them were contemporaries, and if Dr. P.’s rule was then
binding, their reports should have been delivered by them jointly. And if they
had would it not have been said by those to whom the message was obnoxious, to
be the result of collusion ? When one of them “ went to inquire of the Lord”
was it his habit to take a witness along with him. The effects of the divine
afflatus on the man of God, while in operation, might
“ The laws of
nature are different to different men according to the diversities of their
comprehension and knowledge;” and that in case of a miracle “ a known law may
be only suspended or have its action overruled by others more
general though less known.”* So also Carlyle: “ To that Dutch king of Siam,
an icicle had been a miracle; and whoso had carried with him an airpump
and phial of vitriolic ether had worked a miracle. ... To me perhaps the
raising of one from the dead were no violation of the laws of nature but a
confirmation; were some far deeper law, now first penetrated into, and by
spiritual force, even as the rest have all been brought to bear on us with
material force.”f De Wette in his “Theodore”! speaks to the same
purpose; and his Translator tells us that “ the view which has prevailed
among us, is not received by any of the enlightened theologians of Germany
at the present time among the supernaturalists. They speak of miracles as
being above nature but not opposed to nature.” IIahn\\ says, that
“the opinion is neither taught in Scripture nor conceivable in itself................. and that according to
that view, every miracle
supposes another, to restore again the
order of things which has been interrupted.” ‘^Reason,” says Locke,g “must be
the judge what is a miracle and what not; which not knowing how far the power
of natural causes may extend themselves, and what strange effects they may
produce, is very hard to determine.” It thus appears that even the spirit of
certain Evangelical writers on this subject is becoming more liberal—and Dr. P.
himself from his cautious phrases of “ God’s being wont to interpose by his
almighty power; arrest in some way the regular movements of
nature”—would seem to be aware of the change.
But are miracles the best proof of the
truth of a Revelation I And here too we could call up a cloud of witnesses in
the negative. Says Coleridge : “It was only to overthrow the usurpation
exercised in and through the senses that the senses were miraculously appealed
to. Reason and Religion are their own
evidence. . . . The principles revealed and the examples recorded in
Scripture render miracles superfluous." And this opinion he
could defend by a series of passages to the same effect, from the Fathers and
the most eminent Protestant Divines from the Reformation to the
Revolution."^ “ Miracles serve only to excite attention; they cannot,
by themselves, prove the truth and goodness of what he who performs them
teaches. They have a reference, too, to human ignorance and weakness, and would
not serve for every degree of culture.”**— “ Here too may some inquire, not
without astonishment, On what ground shall one that can make iron swim, come
and declare that, therefore, he can teach religion ? To us, truly, of the nineteenth
century, such declaration were inapt enough; which nevertheless, to our
fathers, of the first century, was full of meaning.”ff —And let us hear Bishop
Taylor—“Although the argument drawn from miracles is good to attest a holy
doctrine, which by its own worth will support itself, after way is
little made by miracles; yet of itself, and by its own reputation, it
will not support any fabric; for instead of proving a doctrine to be true,
it makes
that the
miracles themselves are suspected to be illusions, if they be pretended in
behalf of a doctrine which we think we have reason to account false.” — “ Many
obstacles to the efficacy of miracles,” says another, “ might proceed from the
natural frailty of men, the hurry of passions, the blindness of prejudice, the
errors of a presumptuous philosophy which raises disputes on everything, and
strives to draw everything within its narrow perspective...................................................
Neither the
most striking miracles nor the most splendid wonders of nature can fix man
invariably in the right way. Everything depends on the dispositions of those
who are witnesses to them. Whilst some of a just way of thinking, acknowledge
in one as well as in the other, the power of the Almighty, and the evident
traces of His wisdom and goodness, how many others, of a perverse and
presumptuous cast, will see nothing in them but juggling and deceit, blind
chance, or necessary combinations ! and, as they say, will be more sure of
their arguments than of their eyes! How many other heavy, thoughtless
creatures, slaves of habit and passion look on them with a stupid indifference
only, without drawing any conclusions from them for the regulation of their
lives ; or else contradict every day, in their conduct, the consequences they
had drawn Neither miracles
nor the prodigies of nature captivate the
will.
And he that has wrought them or seen them wrought ceases not on that account to
be a man, that is a weak sinful being. For God can communicate his power to
men without depriving them of their frailty I”f The late Dr. Arnold whites
thus to a friend : “ It has always seemed to me that the substance of a
revelation is a most essential part of its evidence; and that miracles
wrought in javor of what is foolish or wicked, would only prove manicheism.
We are so perfectly ignorant of the unseen world, that the character of any
supernatural power can be only judged of by the moral character of the
statements which it sanctions : thus only can we tell whether it be a
revelation from God, or from the Devil. If his father tells a child something
which seems to him monstrous, faith requires him to submit his own judgment,
because he knows his father’s person, and is sure, therefore, that his father
tells it him. But we caimot thus know God, and can only recognize His voice by
the words spoken being in agreement with our idea of His moral nature .’’J
Again. “Is it possible to deny that the individuals, the churches, and the
times which appear to have been left without miracles, have displayed other and
even more unquestionable signs of God's presence among them; signs which
have not always existed with peculiar brightness where miracles are alleged to
have most abounded.”|| Luther^ himself says, “ No miracle or sign is
to be received in opposition to sound doctrine and therefore Locke
may be forgiven when he remarks, that “ even in those books which have the
greatest proof of revelation from God, and the attestation of miracles to
confirm their being so, the miracles are to be judged by the doctrine and not
the doctrine byjthe miracles. (Dent. xiii. 1.)” And Paul says, “If- an angel
from heaven shall teach any other doctrine,” &c.fl And the sentiment is
thus re-echoed by another of the noblest philosophers of England. “ The very
end of the gospel proves its truth. And that, which to the vulgar is only
knowable by miracles, and teachable by positive precepts and commands, to the
wise and virtuous, is demonstrable by the nature of the thing. So that how can
we forbear to give our assent to those doctrines and that revelation which is
delivered to us and enforced by miracles and wonders 2 But to us, the very
test and proof of the divineness and truth of that revelation, is from the
excellence of the things revealed: otherwise the wonders themselves would
have little effect or power : nor could they be thoroughly depended on, were we
even as near to them as when they were freshly wrought, and strong in the
memory of men. This is what alone can justify our easiness of faith; and in this respect WE CAN NEVER BE
TOO RESIGNED, TOO WILLING, OR TOO COMPLAISANT.”
We might greatly increase this array
of authorities, but surely we have adduced enough to prove that miracles
(which, etymologically, are only something to be wondered at) are not
lawless proceedings, but the operation of laws higher than any known to the
beholders; that they are suited only to the stupid, the obstinate, or the
credulous; that they could add no weight to a true revelation in the
nineteenth century, and were therefore unsuited to the character of Swedenborg.
CHAPTER IV.
DR. POND’S UNFAIRNESS IN HIS MODE OF DEALING
WITH THE DOCTRINES OF SWEDENBORG.—THESE DOCTRINES PARTICULARLY CONSIDERED IN
CONTRAST WITH THOSE HELD BY DR. POND AND HIS SCHOOL.
When
a book which purports to be a review of a particular system of Theology, is
put forth with the avowed purpose of aiding the public in the judgment to be
formed of its merits, what is it that should receive the principal share of the
critic's attention 2 Should we not reasonably expect that it would be the doctrines
which constitute that system 2 If this be the dictate of justice with regard to
any other, however long established and generally recognized, is it not
especially demanded in the case of one which is probably new to most of his
readers 2 The New Church has a system of doctrine, well digested,
clearly defined, which claims to be based on Scripture and sanctioned by
Reason. It was this which first drew the attention of its members generally.
Until this had been properly tested, Swedenborg’s revelations of the Spiritual
Sense of the Scripture and of the nature of the other life, received but little
of their regard. When the first had won their assent, they found nothing unintelligible
in the second, nor unnatural or improbable in the third. Nor was theirs a blind
or hasty faith. The system is plainly set forth and fully expounded in various
works of Swedenborg entirely devoted to that purpose. Its several parts and
especially those which have been most generally questioned have been
elaborately discussed in the volumes of apologists which are accessible to all
the world. The creeds and articles of other churches must also and necessarily
pass in review before their final choice. This system then they have
deliberately adopted ; on its truth and their obedience to its dictates they
rest their hopes of salvation. If this were really a sandy foundation, a
friendly critic would lay it bare in that “ spirit of love” which is pretended
by this writer. Or if he chose to come in hostile mood, this should be the
primary object of assault with an open and fair opponent. Let him attack the
citadel. If he can carry and overthrow that, its connexions and dependencies
must yield of course.
A slight perusal of the book before us
or a glance at its table of contents will serve to show how far our critic has
departed from this honorable mode of procedure. It is neither just in its
proportions nor arrangement. It requires no great sagacity to conjecture his
motive for giving other subjects so much prominence while that of doctrine is
thrown in the background. We choose to follow a more natural order ourselves.
And though we find little or nothing on this head which can properly be called
argument, we will notice, however briefly, what he designed to pass as such.
Thus after copying our Articles of
Faith in his 2d Chapter, he appends to each some trite remark or stale
objection which could only excite a smile in one who was versed in the system.
In Chap. V. he returns to the subject and urges as his “ fourth objection to
the claims of Swedenborg” that he “ discards much important scriptural truth,
and inculcates, on many points, essential error.” He then enumerates some
dozen or more heads of doctrine—on which he gives with more or less fairness a
statement of Swedenborg's view—and proves it heretical somewhat after the
following manner. (And really there is something so cool and systematic in this
method which pervades the entire book, that we thought it would not be a waste
of time to look along the pages and gather a few instances of its
exemplification ; but in truth they were so frequent that we gave over in despair.)
The reader will take these few as specimens. “ Swedenborg denies the Christian
doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 91). “ He was in fact a Unitarian. A.
Unitarian believes in the existence of one God in one person; a
Trinitarian, of one God in three persons. . . . The Trinity of which he
speaks is little more than nominal''1 (p. 42). “ Every
reader of the Bible knows that three Divine personages are set forth
as being in some sense and to some extent distinct from each other” (p.
137). “The Divine Love and Wisdom are usually and justly considered as
the attributes of God, and not as constituting his very substance and essence"
(p. 168). “The process of Redemption, according to Swedenborg, is entirely different
from that of the Scriptures—as these are understood by evangelical
Christians” (p. 100). “ To an evangelical believer —a Christian
after the pattern of Paul” (p. 5). “ Swedenborg denies the proper atonement
of Christ” (98). “ He denies the intercession of Christ” (101). “ What
(on his view of Intercession) becomes of all Christian supplication—such as
in the Scriptures we are directed to offer 1” (102). “ He denies
Predestination as set forth in the Scriptures" (97). “
Justification by faith is another of the great doctrines of Revelation
which he everywhere impugns and rejects” (104). “If Paul did not teach
[justification by faith] then words cannot teach anything" (138). “
Paul’s language [on this subject] has been understood with a remarkable degree
of uniformity by Evangelical Christians in all ages" (139). “
Swedenborg held the unscriptural doctrine of 'an intermediate state
between Heaven and
Hell” (105). “ The Scripture
doctrine of the second coming of Christ, the genera! Judgment, and the end
of the World are entirely set aside and rejected in the Theology
of Swedenborg" (109). “ The language of the Bible is not wholly
figurative, much less has it throughout the hidden senses which Swedenborg ascribes
to it” (77). “ Swedenborgianismis not properly Christianity!” (285).
What an incarnation of arrogance must
this same professor of Theology be! And though he tells us in his preface that
his book is especially designed for evangelical” readers—that is, to convert
the already converted—yet what a contempt must he have had even for their understandings
while thus vaporing, and begging every great question in dispute ! Or,
having lectured so long to the uveniles” of Bangor, he perhaps presumes
that “ Evangelicals” in general only require him “ to lay down, the law” tlrat
they may show their patient submission to his “authority.” This -will not do,
Mr. Pond; and if you think that you can fill this country by themere fragrance
of your name, you may chance to find yonrself mistaken. If your object was
merely to prove that the system of Swedenborg and the New Church was not that
of Calvin, you might have spared yourself the trouble. We are proud and happy
to acknowledge that we dissent not only from him, but from all the sects and
parties who more or less symbolize with him and appropriate to themselves the
title of “ Evangelical,” in the hope perhaps that the world will give them
credit for the principles and virtues which so respectable a name ought to
imply. Most of us understand that system—quite as well, it may be, as you can
inform us. Many of us remember the perplexities and anxiety it cost us while
under its influence. It was from its errors and inconsistencies, its doctrines
so dishonorable to God, and its endless disputations, that we have fled ; and
we feel that we can never be sufficiently grateful for the happy exchange we
had it in our power to make.
A writer who habitually violates the
first principles of logic and the usual courtesies of argument is not entitled
to a reply on his own account. It is for the sake of others that we return to
the duty; premising, however, that we shall follow his example and touch but
lightly on matters of doctrine—but for a different reason. We deem it a work of
supererogation to repeat arguments which are already enshrined in the able and
eloquent works which we shall have frequent occasion to mention, and which have
never yet been shaken ~T out especially is it unnecessary to
re-enter on a full consideration of them when they have so recently been placed
before the public in Prof. Bush’s Reply to- Dr. Woods, who traversed nearly the
same ground with the present Reviewer. We will content ourselves with noticing
only such of his remarks as seem to< call for correction.
And first as to the doctrine of the
Trinity. Do all Unitarians believe in a God in one person I
Do not many, who call themselves such, profess to believe in a Deity equally
diffused through all space, and that this “ somewhat” has no person at all 1
And cannqt one acknowledge a trinity without believing in three persons
1 If Dr. P. cannot perceive this distinction, it is hasty to argue from
that fact to a similar want of perspicacity in other minds.. And if
Swedenborg’s Trinity appears to him merely “ nominal,” the ascription of Divinity
to the Saviour on the tri-personal scheme is really so, for if divinity be
divided into thr?e equal shares, it is reduced to a nullity for all. There are
moreover thousands of readers of the Bible, as he well knows, who can see
therein no mention of more than one divine personage. And then let the
Scriptures decide whether Love and Wisdom are not something more than mere “
attributes.” •“ God is Love,” said John. “ The Spirit is Truth.” 11
Thy Word is Truth.” “ The Word was God.” The Word was made Flesh."
•• I am the Truth,” said the Lord himself (1 John iv. 8 ; v. 6 ;
John xvii. 17; is 1, 14; xiv. 6). In the Theology of Swedenborg Truth and
Wisdom are convertible terms. Coleridge has said, li Whether Ideas
are regulative only according to Aristotle and Kant; or likewise Constitutive, and one with the power and
life of Nature, according to Plato and Plotinus, is the highest problem
of Philosophy.”* Our Professor has virtually prejudged this question ex
cathedra; but while we appeal from his decision to the declarations of Holy
Writ, for the guidance of plain minds—those who wish to examine the subject on
grounds of Reason, will find it amply unfolded in those works of Swedenborg
which treat of Sacred Metaphysics. What is an attribute ? Is it not something
which appears to rest in the objects of Nature or Spirit, by which they
are characterized: and which either helps to constitute them, or is lent
to them for their time being ? In either case there must be some fountain
in the Universe from which they have originally proceeded ; and what other
primary fountain can there be but Deity itself I If we ascend in thought to
this source—can we stop short of the conclusion that what we call his
attributes must go to constitute his very self—and that from Him do flow forth
perennially and without exhaustion the streams which preserve the Creation
which he originally made ?—in a word, that “ in Him, we live and
move and have our being ?”
In the Preliminary Letter the reader
will find a statement of our views on the Trinity, sufficiently full and clear
to enable him to distinguish between that plain and intelligible faith and the
mysterious language which has so long passed current in the world. We find it
necessary both to repeat a part and to make a small addition thereto.
We believe in but one God, the
Jehovah of the Old Testament, who became incarnate in the person of Jesus
Christ of the New. When we say this we do not mean that the number of Gods or
Persons was thereby multiplied. The one God could become “ God with us"—“
manifest in the flesh”—without thereby destroying his Unity. The human nature
which he took on himself was conceived by his own power in the womb of
a virgin and born into the world. Swedenborg it is true, taught that “ our Lord
had no human soul” but was animated directly by the Divinity instead. By which
he meant that, having been conceived without the intervention of an earthly
father (Luke i. 20-25), he had no spiritual body other than that he
possessed from eternity, or such as an ordinary man inherits from his father,
and which he wears in the other life when divested by death of the material
body derived from his mother. Such a spiritual body or human soul would have
been superfluous. But the body derived from the mother included a natural
mind which was capable of being de-
App.
Stateman’s Manual, App. Note E. veloped, by the
indwelling divinity, through the higher degrees. It was this human
nature which was called “ the Son of God,” and not any separate divine person
(Luke i. 35 ; Mal. iii. 1; comp. John ii. 21, and Heb. x. 5). But this human nature,
although properly called “ holy”—in that it proceeded immediately from the
divine, as also that it was then in part the residence of Divinity and designed
to be ultimately and wholly so—in another aspect, as being derived from an
imperfect human mother, was itself imperfect, infirm, suscerptible to
temptation and therefore had tendencies to sin, though it never yielded thereto
(Job xiv. 4; Luke ii. 40,52; Matt. iv. 1-8 ; xxii. 18; Heb. iv. 15 ; comp. Jas.
i. 18 •, Ex. xxxiii. 20; Heb. ii. 10, 18). Now Dr. P. affects to think that
there is no point of Swedenborgian divinity which will appear so strange
and shocking to the whole Christian world as this. We desire the
reader here, as elsewhere in this reply, to have his Bible at hand and to refer
directly to the several passages cited: and also to consider that Swedenborg
draws a distinction between evil and sin, which is steadfastly
observed throughout all his writings. For imperfections, weaknesses,
infirmities, susceptibility to temptation, inherited from parents who are
alike defective or perverted, the individual is not responsible unless he
appropriate or yield to the same. And this is the only view of the subject that
comports with the justice of God and the free-will of man. We suppose that none
but Romanists believe in the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin. When
therefore we recur to the texts and find Job declaring that “ a clean thing cannot
be brought out of an unclean:” that I the child Jesus waxed strong in
spirit,” and therefore was not perfect in strength before and of course infirm;
that “he increased in wisdom and in favor with God,” and therefore was
not yet perfect in wisdom : that “he was tempted of the devil” and of the
Pharisees of that day: “ made perfect through sufferings,” and
consequently was not perfect before ; which sufferings were occasioned by his
“ being tempted”—“ tempted in all points like as we are, yet without
sin, and therefore he is able to succor us ’ that “ God cannot be tempted of
evil,” and of course it was the human nature which thus suffered ; are
not the several positions fully sustained and by the highest authority ? And
why should it be thought a degradation in Jehovah to assume the human—which was
originally his own nature, though now lapsed from its integrity—for the purpose
of restoring it. To the pure all things are pure, and
“ Evil into the mind of God or man May
come and go, so unapproved, and leave No spot or blame behind.”—Par.
Lost, V. 117.
But, in his eagemess to convict us of
heresy, the Reviewer has unconsciously accused himself; for his own Confession
of Faith says that “ the eternal God did . . . take upon him man’s nature, and all
the essential properties and common
infirmities thereof I" (Chap. VIII. Sec. 2). This is going farther
than we do, for when we inquire what is here to be understood by “ common infirmities,”
if we will look back to Chap. VI. See. 2, 3, 4 of the same document, we find it
stated that in consequence of the fall of Adam, “ all his posterity” . . . “
are wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul
and body" . . “ made opposite to all good and wholly
inclined to all evil!" We regard such a statement as this as a libel
on our Maker, and one which cannot justly be predicated of any except the worst
of devils.
He is also disturbed that Swedenborg
should make the spiritual sense of the Psalms expressive of our Lord’s
suffering during temptation. Yet here again we are favored with the suffrage of
Bishop Horne ; and Bishop Horsley is very express to the same purpose, in the
preface to his “ Translation” of that book. “ Of those Psalms which allude to
the life of David, there are none in which the Son of David is not the
principal and immediate subject. David's afflictions are the Messiah’s sufferings.
David's penitential supplications are the supplications of Messiah in agony.
David's songs of triumph and thanksgiving, are Messiah’s songs of triumph and
thanksgiving for his victory over sin and death and hell. In a word, there
is not a page of this book of Psalms in which the pious reader will not
find the Saviour."
If then, as has been
revealed, Jehovah condescended to assume our nature, at first burdened with its
common infirmities, but afterwards to be purified and strengthened as a fit
temple for the Divinity, it makes no difference as to the fact, whether the
body was prepared in a moment, a day, or thirty three years. But the difference
was great in other respects. The Deity of the Bible does nothing without means.
He is also a God of order; his attributes act in harmony, and infinite power
will do nothing which is not sanctioned by infinite wisdom. The purposes of
Jehovah did not terminate in the mere assumption of humanity. There were ends
to be effected while this process was going on; it must therefore be gradual. :
The free will of man, which consists
in his being placed in equilibrio between opposite spiritual influences, was
being disturbed; and from besieging the minds the powers of evil had advanced
so far as to possess the very bodies of men. This fearful disorder must
be rectified; but by whom ? None but Divinity was competent to the task (Isa.
lix. 16, 17 ; Ixiii. 1-5 ; John xvi. 32). But as the naked Divinity is “ a
consuming fire,” and no one “can see God and live” (Ex. xxxiii. 20; Heb. xii.
29); and as, therefore, in the long interval between the fall of man and the
Incarnation, the communication with his creatures was by the intervention of an
angel (Gen. xlviii. 16 ; Ex. iii. 2; xxiii. 20-23 ; Isa. Ixiii. 9 ; Heb. xii.
29); so a veil must now be interposed to prevent the destruction alike
of men as of their spiritual foes. This veil was the human nature, by means of
which the latter could be approached. Their temptations were endured in all
possible variety and triumphantly repelled in every instance, as we have seen
above, through the power of the Divinity within. That there was such a
contention with and victory over the infernal powers may also be inferred from
the following passages (Isa. Ixiii. 1-9; lix. 16, 17; Jer. xlvi. 5, 10; Ps.
xlv. 4-7 • John xii. 31 ; xvi. 11; xvii. 33 Luke x. 18 ; Rev. i. 18). The result of this
process was that his humanity was perfected, divinized, or, as it is expressed
in Scriptures, “ glorified” (John vii. 39; xiii. 31. 32 ; xvii. 15; xii. 27,
28; Luke xxiv. 26 ; Phil. iii. 21); completed when he himself announced from
the cross “ it is finished” (John xix. 30); and when complete, a new divine
influence was put forth which did not before exist; so that now the Father
dwells in the Sou and the Holy Spirit proceeds from him (Col. ii. 9; John xiv.
7-11; x. 30, 38; vii. 39, comp. xx. 22). The conquest being thus obtained, is
also secured. The infernal influence is not only quelled for the time, but so
repressed as to be for ever kept within due bounds. For, so to speak, the armor
of proof with whieh he was then fully invested, being worn for ever, renders
him accessible to his friends, though of brightness intolerable to his foes.
But this is unintelligible to our
Reviewer. “ He can conceive of the Divine, in conjunction with the human; but
for the literal human to become Divine; or, in other words, for a
man, or any part of a man, to become God, I hold to be something more
than a miracle I it is an absolute impossibility.” But this is not what
Swedenborg says. He repeatedly declares that all things derived from the
mother were successively 11 put off' on occasion of his
victories over temptation ; the imperfect forms being as regularly substituted
by divine forms which were derived and brought forth from the Divinity within,
until the whole was perfect; and intimates that our conceptions may be aided
here by the analogous process that takes place in man’s body which is
constantly undergoing waste and repair; as also by the tendency of the soul in
man to assimilate the body to itself, which is so well known that the latter is
proverbially said to be the index of the former. Our Lord was at first
and rightly called “ the Son of Mary;” but whereas he afterwards repudiated
that title (Johnii.4; xix. 26, 27; Luke viii. 20, 21' xx. 40-44); so, as he
advances through the several stages of this glorification, he claimed a nearer
affinity with the Father, until at length he declared the union between them to
be entire and reciprocal (John x. 30; xvii. 10, 21). Thus without any blending
or confusion of the two they are distinctly one.
Now if Dr. Pond cannot conceive of a
Divine Humanity, Clement, St. Austin, Eusebius, and others of the Fathers, as
also Dr. Heiiry More and Coleridge among the moderns, did, all of whom use the
very phrase or its equivalents. The primitive Christians believed the fact in
simplicity—but we can readily suppose that they did not understand it clearly.
This was one of the “ tilings which they could not bear”—to be expounded more
fully when, at his Second Advent, he was “ to show us plainly of the Father.”
Though individuals may have had a clearer perception of this grand truth, the
unsuccessful efforts to elucidate it to the minds of Christians in general,
first raised up Arms—then Athanasius on the opposite extreme—with all the
intermediate shades of error —which convulsed the Chureh through
centuries—until the scimitar of Mahomet gave them all a stern rebuke, and
rescued at least one and the most important truth from perishing amid their
inveterate quarrels. If still he denies that the Humanity is divine, will he
tell us what and where it is now. Himself assured his disciples
that it would be omnipotent and omnipresent, and Paul declares
that it was “ received up into glory” and “ ascended far above all the heavens”
(Matt, xviii. 20; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Eph. iv. 10). How much less- than Divinity it
would require to impart these virtues ®
But farther : Jesus declared anew the
everlasting laws of Heaven, without the observance of which, it is impossible
to attain the ends of our creation— and gave us his divine counsels to walk
therein. He promised pardon on sincere repentance, for most true it is that in
the Theology of Swedenborg, as in that of the Bible, “the removal and remission
of sins are the same” (Job xxii. 2, 3; xxxv. 6, 7; Jer. xviii. 7, 8 : Isa. Iv.
7; Luke xxiv. 47, 48 ; Acts v. 30, 31: 1 John i. 9). He did yet more. He set us
a perfect example for our •imitation (Matt. x. 38; xvi. 24; xix. 28; John xii.
26 ; 1 Pet. ii. 21, 22 ; 1 Cor. x. 13; 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18 ; iv. 16); and held
out new inducements and gave us new powers to follow him in the regeneration
(Luke xiii. 24; Heb. xii. 4 : Phil. ii. 12; 1 Cor. x. 13 : Heb. ii. 18; Jas. i.
12). Thus did “God in Christ’’ make '•‘ atonement"
or reconcile the world to himself; and thus does His Humanity “
intercede” or go between them and their Maker (2 Cor. v. 19; Rom. v. 9.
11). But this seems to give our Reviewer as little satisfaction as the other.
He asks, “what has Christ actually done for his people"? He has
afforded them instruction.
He has set them an example. He overcame his temptations, and they
must overcome theirs. He purified his corrupt human nature, and
they must purify theirs. He has also removed and restrained to some
extent, the evil spirits, or hells, so that the temptations of men may not be
so great, nor their return to God so difficult, as they would otherwise have
been. But has he made any satisfaction to the broken law, or the injured
justice of Jehovah ? Has he opened to the despairing sinner a way of pardon
"? not at all. Nothing of this was needed. The atonement of the
Swedenborgian therefore, when stripped of all its magniloquent, mystical, and
absurd phraseology, is little more than the atonement of the simple
Humanitarian;—a provision, on the ground of which some of the difficulties
in the way of repentance are removed, and new motives are furnished for
the performance of the duty.” A very small affair truly. To give free agents, who
cannot be forced, u power to become the sons of God,” “
to work out their own salvation,” and to assure them tha though “ temptation”
is incident to their present state, “ it shall never be irresistible,” and to
place “ an eternal weight of glory” in the vista as the fruit of obedience!
Verily cur Professor is grateful to his Maker for his gifts I
We are fully apprised that there is a
system revived in modern times by Martin Luther, and attempted to be fathered
on Paul, which teaches that this may be accomplished by a much shorter method:
that “ a satisfaction has been made to the injured justice of Jehovah” by one
who—the same system declares—was Jehovah himself!—who paid the debt which
mankind owed— its adherents do not very well agree to whom or what—but if
sinners will only believe that this divine person was actuated by love,
and another divine person by vengeance; that the latter punished the
fonner though innocent u hi the room and stead” of sinners though
guilty, and called it justice.'—if he will only .believe these and
few more such consistent and probable and honorable propositions, he will be
“justified,” and if there be time to do no more—will be saved! This expedient,
we must own, has something very alluring about it. But believing as we do in
one only and just God, who has told us in innumerable places
that we “ shall be judged according to our works,” and through his apostle,
that “ man is not justified by faith only,” and that “ faith without
works is dead" (James ii. 24, 26); we think it rather hazardous to
trust such promises.
The sum of the above explanation is,
that Jesus Christ is the Christian’s God —in whose sole person is concentrated
the Trinity of the Scriptures—the Father dwelling in Him, and the Holy Spirit
proceeding from Him—jnst as in the person of each individual man we find a soul
and body and power of action resulting from the union of the other two.
That his humanity, at first imperfect, was afterwards glorified or made divine,
by victory over all temptations; that in effecting this, the menaced liberty
of man was defended and confirmed—the world reconciled to God—new motives and
powers of obedience to the divine counsels furnished—and that it is this
Humanity which mediates or intercedes between man and the naked
divinity—and is therefore to be directly approached in worship. Will the
reader contrast this now with the following statement of the learned and pious
and orthodox Bishop Beveridge. “We are now to consider the order of those
persons iu the trinity described in the words before us (Matt, xxviii. 19).
First, the Father, and then the Son, and then the Holy Ghost: every one of
which is really and truly God; and yet they are all but one real and true God.
A mystery, which we are all bound to believe, but yet must have a great care
how we speak of it, it being both easy and dangerous to mistake
in expressing so mysterious a truth as this is. If we think of it, how
hard is it to imagine one numerically Divine nature in more than one and
the same Divine person 7 Or three Divine persons in no more than one and
the same Divine nature ? If we speak of it, how hard is it to find out
words to express it I If I say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost be three, and
every one distinctly God, it is true; but if I say they be three, and every one
a distinct God, it is false. I may say the Divine persons are distinct iu the
Divine nature ; but I cannot say, that the Divine nature is divided into the
Divine persons. I may say, God the Father is one God, and the Son is one God,
and the Holy Ghost is one God, but I cannot say, that the Father is one God,
and the Son another God, and the Holy Ghost a third God. I may say, the Father
begat another who is God; yet I cannot say, that he begat another God. And from
the Father and the Son proceedeth another who is God ; yet I cannot say, from
the Father and the Son proceedeth another God. For all this while, though their
nature be the same, their persons are distinct; and though their persons be
distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the
first person in the Godhead, the Son the second, the Holy Ghost the third ; yet
the Father is not the first, the Son a second, and the Holy Ghost a third God. So
hard a thing is it to ward so great a mystery aright; or to fit so high a truth
with expressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another
from it.”— (Bishop Beveridges Private Thoughts, part II. p. 48, 49).
“ Who is this that darkeneth counsel
by words without understanding ?” Can such a jargon of distinctions without
difference convey instruction to men of plain minds 1 and should that be
called a Revelation ! which imparts nothing clearer? Is this the narrow strait
between Scylla and Charybdis—which reminds us of the fabled bridge of Mahomet,
along which his followers glide into their Paradise—is this the broad sea of
Truth over which the Christian is invited to sail ? Can it be the highway in
which even the fool need not err? Is it not rather a labyrinth in which the
wisest if he permit himself to be led therein blindfold, may wander for ever
after in the hope of egress ?—And yet this is neither better nor worse than
numberless similar statements which might be quoted. Let a candid public judge
between us and them.
But there are other points of doctrine
which have been called in question and to which we must briefly advert.
Swedenborg taught that all the
inhabitants of the spiritual world are of the human species, and that there
is neither angel nor demon who was not once a man on this or some other earth.
In particular does he deny the existence of such a being as Miltou’s'satan,
once an archangel, then a rebel, and now the prince of hell. However brilliant
and perfect the execution of the work of Milton, the conception on which the
whole character is based, is perhaps the most gigantic absurdity (one always
excepted) that ever entered the mind of a man of sense, and profane to boot
(see Job Abbott, 141-144). Mr. Noble (Appeal, sec. VI. p. 2), has exammed every
passage of the Word that has been usually thought to favor such an idea, and
shows that they refer not to any personal devil, but to the infernal powers in
the aggregate. For the rest, “man” and “ angel” in the Scriptures, are
convertible terms, as the following passages selected from a number will show
(Judg. xiii. 6, 10,11; Dan. ix. 21; Micah xvi. 5 ; John xx. 12; Rev. xxi. 17 ;
xx. 8, 9). The Reviewer quotes the statement of this doctrine without comment,
but includes it in his catalogue of rejected truths (pp. 46, 92).
Dr. P. says, that the Scriptures
represent the sins of men as in some way connected with the fall of
their first parents (96). When justly interpreted, we see no such dogma
there, as we hope to show hereafter, certainly not in Rom. v. 18, 19, which he
cites for that purpose. The latter verse speaks of “ many” not of all men, and
thus favors our view of a man’s propensities being inherited from his
immediate progenitors. Sin might commence with one man -without his
being the first man. From him the tendency might spread by contagion
and be propagated by descent, until in process of time it would involve
all in corruption. So that judgment would ultimately come upon the whole
race living at some later period, without being retrospective in its operation.
Adam was “ the first man” only in the sense that Christ was the second man, the
one the type of a degenerating, the other of a regenerating stock.
Swedenborg denied the doctrine of election
and predestination, as called by Calvinists, and taught that all
are predestinated to heaven, but that such only will be elected as have by
charity and obedience formed a character fitted for such a residence. Dr. P.
touches but lightly upon this topic. But why is it no longer preached by him
aud his compeers ? To use his own genteel language (p. 244), “we challenge them
to do it.” Some years ago, Dr. Porter, of Andover, in a private letter
to Dr. Beecher (which, however, found its way to the press without leave of the
person to whom it was addressed), utters the following complaints: “ Thirty
years ago, ten sermons on total depravity and election were preached in
New England to one that is preached on those subjects now.” The number, we
should judge, is not likely to increase there or elsewhere, as there is not
perhaps a single living individual, distinguished for literature, science or
philosophy, who holds to the latter doctrine, unless he may have adopted it
with his creed. Your old friend John Wesley, as we have seen, after quoting the
Confession of Faith, in reference to “the decrees of God,” on this subject,
says: “ I defy you to say anything so bad of the devil.” And we must own that
we concur with him in opinion.
Swedenborg taught that regeneration
is not instantaneous, but progressive. And herein he is not peculiar,
having the concurrence of multitudes of pious, learned and sober Protestant
divines, both before and since. The Calvinistic notion is based on a false
analogy. Man is not bom in an instant. He is borne or earned by
his mother for months before he enters the world. Just so, he is afterwards spiritually
carried by our Lord, long before his regeneration is complete—or he is
fitted for entering on the new life of heaven. “ Whosoever is born of
God,” says John, “ doth not commit sm” (1 John iii. 9 • v. 18). Daily
observation shows that thousands of those who profess to be regenerate,
according to Dr. Pond’s notion, do not come up to this standard. Conversion
is a different tiring, for the Christian life, like any other course, must have
a beginning. The dogma we oppose has given birth to spiritual pride—to presumption—to
self-deception, and a tram of evils.
Swedenborg denied the resurrection
of the natural body,—but so did John Locke, Dr. Thomas Burnet, Prof. Bush
(before he became a Swedenborgian), and others whom we can name. And here
again, one apologist, Mr. Noble (Sec. Ill), comes in with his exhaustive
criticism, passing in review every passage of Scripture, which has been
supposed to favor the common notion, and has proved their entire insufficiency
for that purpose. When Dr. Pond shall have succeeded in setting aside the
argument of either of these gentlemen, it will be time enough to consider it
further. Meantime we will only add that the orthodox themselves are not agreed
as to what is raised: reciprocally charging each other with vending
heresy. Paul says that “ there is a natural body and there is a spiritual
body;” that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;” that
“the body sown is not the body that shall be;” that “a natural body is
sown and a spiritual body is raised” (1 Cor. xv. 44, 50, 37). In like
manner Swedenborg taught that the resurrection of the same body is simply impossible,
but that the spiritual body, which every man has enclosed in his natural
body—rises up at death a spirit—that is, the man himself, in a spiritual
world, which is to be its future residence, and refers in proof to Abraham,
Isaac. Jacob, Moses, and others who are now living men in that world (Matt.
xxii. 32, 33; Luke xvi. 22-24; ix. 30; Rev. vii 9 ; xxii. 8, 9).
Again : Swedenborg says that “ the
Earth will never be destroyed,” and one of his followers has referred to the
following passages of Scripture in proof. Gen. ix. 12; Ecc. i. 4; Ps. Ixxii.
17; Ixxviii. 69; Ixxxix. 35—37; xcvi. 10; xciii. 1; civ. 5 ; exxv. 1; cxix. 90;
cxlviii. 6 ; 2 Sam. vii. 16; Isa. Lx. 7 ; Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14, 27; Micah iv.
5, 7; Comp. Luke i. 33 and Rev. xi. 15. Every Greek scholar knows that the
phrase “ end of the world” in Matt. xiii. 39; xxiv. 30 ; xxviii. 20; should be
translated “ consummation of the age.” Peter, who (Acts ii. 16-20) had
explained similar language of the Prophet Joel as fulfilled on the day of
Pentecost, in his 2d Epistle iii. 7-10, has reference to the above words of
our Lord ; of course to be fulfilled in a similar manner, as also wherever it
is used in the prophetic style. Matt v. 18 ; Luke xvi. 17, and 18, and the
like, declare, by a strong Hebraism, of two events that both are equally
improbable; so that the passages just cited retain their literal import.
Swedenborg did not deny the
doctrine of future or general judgment. He asserts that several such
judgments have already taken place, particularly one which was predicted by the
Ancient Prophets as to occur during the first Advent, and which is referred to
in such passages as the following, as actually going on (Matt. iii. 11, 12;
John v. 25; ix. 39; xii. 31). Another, whieh was foretold by the Lord himself
(Matt, xxiv.), and of which Swedenborg declares that he was permitted to be an
eye-witness, that the same might be announced to the world. He further tells us
that it took place in the year 1757. And certainly if tire world is ever to be
destroyed, no natural reason can be given why it might not occur at one time as
well as at another. The changes which have since taken place in this world, as
we tliink, give token of such a judgment having then happened. But this brings
us to the last great heresy which is laid to his charge.
If the material body rise not again;
if the Earth abideth for ever; where could such a judgment take place except in
the spiritual world ? And as the majority of our race are of such mixed
character, as requires their true disposition to be developed gradually, or
else to be passed upon by Infinite Wisdom, before consigning them to their
final abode in heaven or hell—does not the necessity for an intermediate
state and place immediately appear 1 For this doctrine Dr. Pond “finds not
a particle of evidence in either the Old Testament or New.” Others however do;
and in Hindmarsh’s Compendium, one of the volumes which he has “pondered,” much
of it is collected. Many of the objects, and scenes, and occurrences witnessed
by the old Prophets and by John, m Spiritual vision, were neither in Heaven or
Hell. And this middle place is otherwise alluded to in the Scriptures.
The Old Fathers, we think
without exception, believed in it, as was long ago noticed by Daille,
and Bishop Pearson, in his work on the Creed, makes copious extracts
from them in proof. Chapman, the champion of Episcopacy, says: “ The
doctrine of an intermediate state should not be discarded on the ground of
novelty, as it is peculiar to no age or country, nor to any Protestant
denomination. It is rather maintained by all the great divines of our church,
from the time of Cranmer to that of Horsley, and notwithstanding
the popular opinion upon which I have animadverted, our learned dissenting
brethren have not been averse from defending its Scriptural authority, as may
be seen in the writings
of Doddridge, Watts, Campbell, and McKnight, of the Presbyterian
Church; and Wesley aud Adam Clark, of the Methodist, with many
others. There are indeed few truths contained in the Sacred Volume, susceptible
of clearer demonstration" (Sermons, p. 277). And the late Bishop
Hobart, of New-York, has, in a learned dissertation, given his sanction to
the same view. After this, we think, the reader must concur with ns in our
admiration of the modesty of this Reviewer; and which especially shines forth
in the closing sentence of this chapter. After what has been said, his readers
will decide, whether the position . . . “ that Swedenborg discards much
important religious truth, and inculcates, on many points, essential error,” is
not fully justified!
Such are the teachings of Swedenborg
on some of the principal heads of Theology, to which this Reviewer excepts; and
chiefly, as we have seen, for the reason that they differ from those of
Calvinists on the same subjects; for really, his pretended arguments are scarce
worthy of the name ; and his citations of Scripture are so entirely beside the
question, or overruled by others,— or so obviously misinterpreted, that if the
spirit of the book was not too manifest elsewhere, we should have thought he
was trying an experiment on the credulity of his readers.—There yet remains a
grave and kindred charge—that of “frequently contradicting and denying the
obvious teachings of Scripture,” to substantiate which he enumerates some fifteen
particulars “ in respect to minor matters?' Thus Swedenborg says: (1.)
“The Lord did not create the Universe for his own sake,” or “ for his own
glory,” as those expressions are ordinarily understood. (2.) That the true
system of Theology was not discoverable without the aid of Revelation, and is
therefore charged with denying all natural Theology. (3.) That miracles
and signs do not reform a free agent, because they force. (4.) Nor threats
and punishments,—for the same reason. (5.) That the rich may attain
to Heaven as easily as the poor. (6.) That the marriage relation exists in
Heaven. (7.) That the angels are not always praising God in Heaven.
(8.) That neither are they altogether pure. (9.) Nor perfectly
happy. (10.) That the Lord casts no one down to Hell, but the wicked
betake themselves thither. (11.) That the punishment of Hell is not retrospective,
but for evils then and there done. (12.) That even the devils are
the subjects of the Lord’s mercy. (13.) That they are at times permitted to sleep.
(14.) That they are 'as much in error as in sin. (15.) That many phrases
of Scripture are to be construed to a sense the opposite of that
conveyed by the letter.—Truly, a most formidable array of instances to be
brought forward for such a purpose in the Nineteenth Century!
But, a word before we enter on a
specific reply. Waving, for the present, the question of a Spiritual Sense, we
had supposed that it was scarcely necessary at this day, for any man of common
intelligence, who was also tolerably acquainted with the Word, and respected it
as a Revelation from God—to be told that its “obvious sense” was not always its
true sense, even where the inquiry has exclusive reference to the sense of the
letter, and that what is now called the “ figurative meaning” of Scriptures has
a much wider scope than was believed in the Middle Ages. A Professor of
Theology, who still asserts the former deserves to be unfrocked. This whole
book is “obviously” an ad captandum appeal to prejudice. But we would
gently suggest to Dr. P. that he is here pressing this prerogative of
Evangelicals a little too far-— and remind him that we could quote authority
against him without end,—nay, the very text-books of his own Seminary. We will
not insult the understandings of our readers by arguing such a question at
length. Sufficient it may be to observe, that the Word of God is addressed to
men, and is therefore clothed in the language of men. As a further consequence
of this, much of it is written in a style according to appearances. The true
rule of interpretation is that which reconciles all its parts among themselves,
and every part with sound reason and true doctrine. Any other mode of
proceeding will render its teachings uncertain, beget doubts of its divinity,
and ultimately bring it into contempt. “ Save me from my friends,” is the
ever-renewed cry of the more prudent advocates of Revelation, when they reflect
on the mischief which is wrought by those who insist on adhereing to its literal
meaning throughout. It is impossible for any sane mind to believe two
contradictory propositions. Truth is sometimes harmonious, consistent with
itself;—no one truth can contradict any other truth; by consequence, a
truth of reason or philosophy is not really opposed to unapparent truth of Scripture.
“Judge not according to appearances, but judge righteous judgment,” was the
emphatic injunction of the Lord himself, and on a similar occasion.
(1.) We grant then that there is an
aspect in which it is true that “ the Lord hath made all things for himself
” and “for his pleasure;" but not in that sense which
Swedenborg denied. He taught that God was infinite in his perfections :
that he was the self-sufficient Being, who needed nothing from without
to complete his happiness : that He was love—and that “ it is the essence of
love to love others out of itself—to desire to be one with them—and to make
them happy from itselfthat hence this earth was designed to be “ the perpetual
seminary of heaven,” from which angels might be constantly arriving at his
court, in order to become the recipients of his happiness and blessings to
eternity—and that all other worlds were created with the same view. When
therefore men talk of God's having made all things “ for his own glory,” we
desire them to define their position with accuracy. Do they suppose that God
can derive any addition to his glory from the services of men, as do
earthly princes from the labors and obedience of their subjects : that like
them he cannot be altogether disinterested ? Can any one at the present day be
likely to fall into so insane a delusion who duly reflects on what Divinity is,
and what man is, and their relation to each other ? “ Can man be profitable to
God ?” . . “ Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art, and thy righteousness may
profit the son of man, but if thou sinnest what doest thou against him ? . . if
thou be righteous what givest thou him.” “ He openeth his hand and supplieth
the wants of every living thing.” “ All nations before him are as a drop
of the bucket—as nothing; and they are counted to him as the small dust
of the balance—yea as less than nothing and vanity” (1 Chr. xxix. 11,
12, 14, 16; Job xii. 10; xxii. 2; xxxv. 6-8 ; Ps. cxlv. 16 ; Isa. xl. 15-17,28;
Acts xvii. 25, 26; Rom. xi. 35, 36). And the same rational view has been
subscribed to by the Lecturer himself. The Westminster Confession of Faith
says, “God hath all . . glory and goodness . . in and of himself, and is
alone in and unto himself all sufficient, not standing in need of any
creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only
manifesting his own glory, in, by, unto, and upon them” (Chap.
II. Sec. 2). Nevertheless we fear there are still many who secretly indulge the
unworthy sentiments of their Maker which are there rebuked: nay, that they are
at the basis of their whole theological system, and the pretext for the idea
of arbitrary rewards and punishments which pervades it in so
many directions ; colors i^ throughout, and has suggested some of the very
objections now under review. We know indeed that there are other passages in
this Confession of Faith which seem to contradict that just cited; nor is this
the only inconsistency, by many, which it contains. But such a document is not
without its use to those who know how to tum it to their purposes. For if a
particular offensive dogma or its logical consequences are charged on them,
they can point to a passage in which the opposite of the former is
asserted, or where the latter are disclaimed: they can employ the
authority of either as occasion requires, and if called on to reconcile them,
they are relieved from the task by the ever-ready plea of “ mystery.”
What is the true glory of earthly
princes ? Is it not the number, the virtue, and the happiness of their subjects
1 And as tributary to these, peace, plenty, defence against enemies—which in
their turn are promoted by education, knowledge, the culture of the arts and
sciences and their application to purposes of utility: by just and equal laws
for the regulation of their civil and social intercourse with each other ! The
monarch who really loves his subjects and seeks their well-being is not he who
regards them as his slaves: who makes invidious distinctions among them: who
oppresses and wears them out with his exactions: and under pretext of
supporting the dignity and magnificence of his reign, concentrates the
resources of his realm within the precincts of his Court: who issues his
capricious edicts without condescending to amiex his reasons or to show their
need and utility: who, in short, says, “ I am the state.” Is he not rather one
who is in all respects the reverse of this : who by wise measures diffuses
blessings : and, being disinterested, wishes to see his own happiness reflected
in that of his people I And should we think more unworthy of our Lord who
needs nothing from his people, and freely gives them all they
have 1
(2.) It is not true that Swedenborg
denies natural theology, in the proper sense of that term, as may be inferred
from such propositions as the following which he illustrates at length. That
there is a universal influx from God into the souls of men, that there
is a God, and that he is one. Thence that, in all the world,
there is not a nation possessed of religion and sound reason, which does
not acknowledge a God, and that God is one. That as to what that one God
is, nations and people have differed, and still differ from several causes.
That human reason, from many things in the world, may perceive and
conclude if it will that there is a God, and that He is One. That enlightened reason,
from very many things in the world, may see the infinity of God {T.
C. R. 8, 9, 11, 12, 32). And similar ideas are to be found in other parts
of his works. He says indeed that there never has been a time when there was
not a church upon earth, and that every church has been favored with revelations.
That there was an ancient Word in which that revelation was reduced to writing,
from which the knowledge of the true God was diffused throughout the East and
Africa, and was long handed down by tradition, and that the doctrine of the
divine Unity may have been reflected thence to the minds of philosophers in
Pagan countries. That men may know from reason that there is a
God and some of his attributes, but not know who is the true God, or the Lord,
or a future life, &c. And in this he is not singular. The learned Bishop
Huet, Coleridge, Presidents Marsh* and Hopkinsf all teach the same thing; and
as much may be inferred from all past history. And was not this the very line
of argument taken up by Leland and others during the last century in
opposing the Deist- ical writers 1
Nor does Paul teach more than
this in Rom. i. 20, as the context proves. Our Lord has promised (John vii. 17)
that if any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine
whether it be true. And Paul, having just before said that “in the Gospel is
the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith” i. e.
Coleridge’s'Aids
to Reflections, Marsh’s Ed. Note 57. f Cousin Phil. Miscel. Note C. the justice
which God required, is made plainer to believers as they advance through
successive degrees in the knowledge of truth—now alludes to another class of
men “ who hold the truth in unrighteousness,” or who knew the truth and yet suppressed
it by unrighteousness: “ who when they knew God, glorified him not as God.” They
might indeed have inferred his invisible attributes of Power and Divinity from
the appearance of nature (without the aid of revelation)—and if they had
properly used that knowledge, higher gifts might have been imparted. “ So that
they are without excuse.” But not wishing to retain God in their knowledge,
they fell into idolatry and its consequent corruptions ; and lost the knowledge
which they had once possessed and which could only be restored by a new
revelation. Paul did not believe any more than Job (xi. 7) that man could “ by searching
find out the Almighty to perfection,” as his address to the Athenians
(Acts xvii.) proves. But when the true God has been once declared by
revelation, the belief of his attributes may be confirmed by the appearances
of nature.
(3, 4.) We have already adverted to
the subject of miracles. In this connexion we will only add that either
they, or “ threats and punishments” may be the occasion of bringing
certain stupid, or careless, or obstinate individuals to reflection ;
and this may lead to their voluntary reformation afterwards. But that
neither one of them alone could be the cause of such a result, is a
necessary inference from the doctrine of free agency, even if daily observation
did not prove that such reformations are but “ skin deep.”
(5.) Our Lord, having said that it was
hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, immediately expounded his
own declaration as referred to those “who trust in riches.” To be consistent,
the objector should preach a community of goods ! though we do not
remember to have heard of any of his way of thinking who voluntarily embraced
poverty as being in itself an aid to salvation.
(6.) It is most true that Swedenborg
declares that the marriage union is continued in the other life : and, so far
as we know, was the first who clearly showed the misconstruction which had been
placed on the conference between our Lord and the Sadducees (Luke xx. 27-38).
As we propose to recur to this, we will only add here, that when this Reviewer
goes farther and says that, according to Swedenborg, children are also born in
heaven, he states what he must have known at the tune he peimed it to be a
deliberate falsehood! We use the term of purpose, because, although we are
loath to attribute such conduct to any man of respectable social position—far
less to a clergyman—yet in this instance the fraud and its motive are both
palpable ; for Swedenborg asserts the very reverse—pronouncing moreover such a
result to be impossible!
(7.) Swedenborg expressly states that
there is “worship in heaven, at stated periods, but that such is not the exclusive
occupation of its inmates. The vulgar ideas on this subject have furnished a
fruitful theme for pleasantry, as is well known ; and yet we have a Professor
of Theology railing at him for saying that heaven is not “ a nunnery.” That
there are all possible gradations of happiness and its opposite, from the most
exalted felicity down to extreme misery, even Paley teaches (Mor. Phil. B. I.
Chap. VII. Sec. 2). In reply to the objection that in the infinite varieties of
human character “ there must be very little to choose between the worst
man who is received into heaven and the best' who is excluded,"
he says, “ and how know we but that there may be as little to choose in
their conditions ?” This is much too strongly stated—for there is an impassable
gulf between heaven and hell. But his inference as to the variety of conditions
in the other life we think is fairly drawn from the passages of Scripture there
cited (2 Cor. ix. 6 ; Luke xii. 47, 48 ; Mark ix. 41; Luke xix. 16, &c.).
This being granted, we can also suppose that there is a class of spirits whose
occupation is such as is described in Rev. iv. 8 ; but thatperpetual
psalmody is not the one occupation of angels generally, may also be
inferred from the fact that many of them are engaged in the guardianship and
ministration to men while on earth.
(8.) And do the Scriptures represent
heaven as a place of “ unspotted purity ?’•’ “ Behold,” says Eliphaz, “ he put
no trust in his servants and his angels he charged with folly ! . . Yea,
the heavens are not clean in his sight" (Job iv. 18; xv. 15). Rev.
xxi. 27 refers to those who are to constitute the New Jerusalem. Those who voluntarily
and habitually do evil and cherish falsehood are excluded
from its pale. Swedenborg says the wicked are sometimes “ admitted into heaven
by way of experiment," but “ they soon find the atmosphere unsuited
to their state” and hasten to withdraw. “ Visitors” must first be prepared.
But it can become the permanent residence of no one who has not already
formed a character suited to the society he is like to meet there. It was the
lowest heaven which was “ infested” temporarily by the infernals, but protected
by the divine providence against their assaults.
(9.) If heaven was a state of perfect
happiness, there would in this respect be nothing to acquire. Perfection
does not admit of degrees. But as the happiness of the other life is
progressive ; we may also suppose that suffering may sometimes be
incidental to a preparation for its lower degrees, when the individual is
being divested of the remains of error or evil habit which attend a character
substantially good. And this is the meaning of the passage to which the
Reviewer excepts (D. L. (f W).
Although freedom is an essential to
humanity, and in its own nature liable to misuse and to suffering as a farther
consequence; yet we do not see the Almighty interpose forcibly to prevent this
perversion of his gifts. And he who consciously violates the Divine Law has no
right to complain if the suffering is proportioned to the offence. But we learn
from Scripture that the misery of the wicked is to endure for ever. How
shall we reconcile this seeming anomaly with the divine attributes ’ It is a
poor subterfuge to say that the sins of men are of infinite demerit, because
committed against an Infinite Being; for then would our obedience be of
infinite worth, because directed towards the same being. We can conceive of no
other mode of justifying the ways of God to man, than to acknowledge that there
is nothing arbitrary in the divine proceedings, but that the future lot
of man is the natural result of the proper development of, or injury done to,
his mental constitution while here. He who duly observes the laws of the animal
economy, is rewarded by the orderly state of his frame, of which health,
or freedom from pain, is the exponent. And what are the divine laws but the
annunciation of a method, by Him who made and knows our spiritual frame,
which, if systematically pursued will lead to the symmetry and health of the
soul—of which happiness is at once the index and the fruit. According
as either system of law is habitually and knowingly violated, a principle of
disorder is introduced into the man which works out its inevitable issue in the
dimunition of the individual’s capacity for bodily health or mental happiness.
And surely this view better comports with the attributes of divine mercy and
justice, than that which represents Him as bestowing His rewards without
reference to character, or as delighting in vengeance, as inflicting
pain in an endless hell of natural fire, and the picture heightened by all the
incredible and ridiculous horrors conjured up by the imaginations of malignant
monks. It is also more reasonable, in that it suppresses both presumptuous
hopes and idle fears, while nothing can be more truly terrible to the
reflecting than the idea of such a retribution from which there is no escape.
We know full well that there is much in the language of Scripture which would
seem to militate against this position, but we also know, that there is still
more in the same volume, which, if duly pondered, would prevent the reader from
laying such dishonorable imputations on his Maker, as are necessarily involved
in the literal interpretation of the former. And the latter are so
repeated and so emphatic, as if introduced particularly to guard against such
an error. A wise and benevolent parent prescribes prudential rules for the
conduct of his child, annexes a penalty to their violation, uses the
language of menace when nothing less will restrain the blind and selfish
passions of youth, and administers correction in case of aberration from the
standard. How natural in the latter, when he has offended and incurs the
sentence, to suppose that his parent is angry, and takes pleasure in
punishment, when, in all he does, he is really actuated by the spirit of love.
And then how are such plain declarations as these to be evaded: “Beware, your sin
will find you out," “ My strength faileth because of
mine iniquities,” “ They have gone over my head,” “ Evil pursueth
sinners, shall hunt the violent man to overthrow him, shall slay
the wicked,” “ Can a man take fire in his bosom and his clothes not be
burnt; or go upon coals and his feet not be burnt; whoso doeth this destroyed!
his own soul.” “ He that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul, ’ “
Therefore shall they eat the fruit of their own way, and be filled with
their own devices,” “His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he
shall be holden with the cords of his sins !" “ A wounded spirit
who can bear,” “ Woe unto the souls of the wicked, for they have rewarded
evil unto themselves" “Oh Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself"
“ Your iniquities have separated between you and your God,” “ But
wisdom’s words are life unto those that find them, and health to
all their flesh,” “ Say ye to the righteous . . well . . for they shall eat the
fruit of their doings,” And “ whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap," “ Fury is not in me,” “ I have no pleasure
in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."*
Now when such solemn annunciations as these are set in array against a class of
passages in which a Calvinist most delights, winch must yield? for both
cannot be literally true. Let reason, humanity, and a proper reverence
for the character of the Deity, decide.
‘Num.
xxxii. 23; Ps. xxxi. 10; xxxviii. 4; Prov. xiii. 21; Ps. clx. 11; xxxiv. 21;
Prov. vi. 27, 28, 32; viii. 36; i. 31; v. 22; xviii. 14; Isa. iii. 9; Hor.
xiii. 9; Isa. lix. 2; Prov. iv. 22; Isa. iii. 10; Gal. vi. 8; Isa. xxvii. 4;
Ez. xxxiii. 11.
7
(10.) As infinite wisdom, then, has
not seen fit to wnmake the victims of sin and folly, eould infinite
goodness do less than to provide a plaee of refuge for those unhappy beings, with
their like, who, having- in their day of probation, deliberately said, “
Evil, be thou my God,” “ Self, be thou my divinity,” have thereby rendered
themselves ineapable of the joys of heaven ? The Lord may permit such to
be east down, without easting them down himself. But we might infer that even
this was generally unnecessary, for sueh do “ call on the rocksand mountains
to fall on and hide them from the face of the Lamb” (Rev. vi. 15-17.) And
do we not daily witness analogous seenes on earth—the reekless, flying from the
sober joys of virtuous society—the rude shunning the company of the refined 1
If God is a being “ without passions” as the Confession of Faith
teaehes, how ean he literally take vengeance on the lost ?
(11.) For the same reason, if the
works of the righteous dead “ do follow them," and if he that was
unjust is unjust still (Rev. xiv. 13; xxii. 11), the punishment of the latter
can have no other motive than the restraint of the offender. The
evil receive according to the things done in the body, because
the habits formed here, inhere in them there, and produce their natural
effects, sin being thus its own punishment.
(12.) If his “ tender mercies are over
all his works,” must not even the lost be embraced by it '! And may it
not operate to mitigate their torments and prevent their making each other as
miserable as their dispositions would prompt 1 The long-lost Book of Enoch
has been recovered, and the Apocryphal tale it contains, and to which Judges
(vi.) refers by way of accommodation (as Paul sometimes alludes to Greek
customs and writings for illustration), prove no such doctrine as is
generally found in it. And this the Reverend right well knew. For this is
so dearly demonstrated in Noble’s Appeal (pp. 302-306), one of the books he has
“ pondered,” that no man of proper self-respect, unless he was hopelessly
stupid, would ever think of citing that text again for such a purpose, after
having read that argument.
(13.) Wise men have thought it a
peculiar attribute of the Almighty, that He alone “never slumbers or sleeps.”
And though all finite beings must at intervals be reduced to that state of unconsciousness,
whieh we call “ sleep,” yet the perturbed slumbers of the lost, may be
conceived as anything else than the tranquil rest of the happy. And this
also is satisfactorily explained in the same volume (p. 306)- but the effort to
galvanise objections already strangled, is a part of this writer’s system.
(14.) Mr. Hartwell Home, says: “That
vice weakens the understanding, infatuates the judgment, and hinders it from
diseeming between truth and falsehood, especially in matters of morality and
religion, is a truth not more constantly affirmed in the Scriptures than
confirmed by reason and experience” (Introduction I., Chap. HL, See. 4, p.
356). That the Scriptures sanction this idea, is apparent on its face in
numerous places (as Dan. xii. 10; Hos. xiv. 9; John vii. 17 | viii. 47; 1 Cor.
ii. 14, 15 ; 2 Thes. ii. 10, 11). In accordance herewith Swedenborg teaehes
that the spirits of the lost are insane in various degrees ; and yet
that many of them retain a high degree of cunning. As every one moreover
carries with him all the states of his previous life, they are capable
of being temporarily brought into that, in which their understandings can
perceive tilings as they truly are. But the intellect having been, during life,
enslaved to their corrupt wills, they soon relapse into their habitual states
of insanity.
(15.) When the subjects of an earthly
prince treat his laws and person with contempt, his anger is naturally
excited, and the offender is incarcerated or otherwise punished. The consequences
to the violator of the divine law being similar, similar motives
are also ascribed to the Deity, to make the warning more impressive, and the
efforts more intelligible to the fallen mind of man. Can it be necessary, at
this day, to remind any one who is justly informed as to the attributes of God
and the style of His Word, that there are no such feelings in Him 1 If God were
really u angry,” or “ vindictive,” then would He be infinitely so;
and the Universe would be either blasted from His sight, or be prolonged only
to glut His appetite for revenge. When once we come to reflect hereon, can
anything short of the very opposite be predicated of a God who is Love.
Evil is but the perversion of Good; and the Justice of God is but His Goodness
in effort (consistently with His wisdom), to restore what has been thus
perverted. Well has it been said : “ Take away the Divine Love, and not physical
nature only, but the heart of the moral world would be palsied. And yet
its effects are beneficial or malignant according to the subject on which it
acts. In this respect it may be likened to the san, under whose
influence one plant elaborates nutriment for man, another poison: and
which, while it draws up pestilence from the marsh and jungle, and sets
the Simoom in motion over the desert, diffuses light, life and happiness over
the healthy and cultivated regions of tire earth. The cruel Pagan naturally
ascribes his own unhallowed passions to his imaginary deity. But the
Christian’s idea of God has also been corrupted by manichean infusions; and Dr.
P. ought to know which of the Protestant sects has partaken most largely of the
taint, and thereby comes under the reproach: “ Thou thoughtest I was altogether
such an one as thyself.”
We have thus passed in review the whole
of this writer's objections to Swedenborg’s system of doctrine, although at the
hazard of anticipating some things which might more properly be adverted to
hereafter. Their weakness or frivolity, and the disingenuous maimer in which
they are urged, cannot have escaped the attentive reader. As the subject of
doctrine is the most important, we have dwelt the longer thereon. The remaining
objections, though yet more numerous, will detain us proportionally a shorter
time; and happily, many of them can be disposed of in a few words.
CHAPTER V.
Dr<. Pond’s charge of Swedenborg’s misrepresentations of
doctrines and CHARACTERS,
CONTRADICTIONS OF HISTORICAL AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS, AND INCONSISTENCIES WITH
HIMSELF; MET AND REFUTED.
We
enter now on a New Series of Objections, some of which may be regard - ed as
the natural pendants of those which have already been considered. Others
are different and new, and, as we think, such as could only have occurred to a
mind of the calibre of this Reviewer’s. They all, however, question the accuracy
of Swedenborg’s statements on the several subjects to which they relate. Thus
he is accused of misrepresenting the doctrines and characters of others,
both individuals and churches : of contradicting well established facts
of istory, and of science ; and of being inconsistent with himself in
numerous particulars. Grave charges, truly, against one of his pretensions 1
and some of them not very “consistent” with the character accorded to him by
this very writer—that of being “ a man of learning,” “ a gentleman,” “moral,” “
religious," and “ sincere !" Let us see if he can make
them good.
And first as to the matter of “
misrepresentation,” of which he specifies some ten or more instances. Thus (1.)
Swedenborg has said that “ the Tripersonalists of his day believed in three
Gods. (2.) That Tritheism is virtually taught in the Athanasian Creed. (3.)
That the Protestant Churches “ make God three, and the Lord two,
and place salvation, not in amendment of life, but in certain words breathed
out in a devout tone of voice,” &c. (4.) That he “profanely ridicules” the
Tripersonal faith. (5.) That the Reformed Churches teach “that man, in his
conversion, is like a stock or a statue, and that he cannot so much as
accommodate and apply himself to receive grace.” (6.) That the dogma of
Predestination is derived from the former, and gave rise in its turn to that of
the “ arbitrary imputation of the merit of Christ.” Those who believe
these two doctrines, of course, do not regard a holy life as a means of escape
from the decree of Reprobation. (7.) That he caricatures the doctrine of
Redemption, as held hi the Reformed Churches. (8.) That he charges “ the
believers in Justification by Faith alone” with being negligent of the
Christian life, and averse to I self-examination.” (9.) That the Reformed, like
the Catholics, teach that the understanding is to be kept in subjection to
Faith. (10.) That “ Luther established Solifidianismand (11.) That Calvin
taught what all the world knows he did.
(1.) And first we ask, “ what is a
Person ?” Do we not hereby understand a separate and distinct, embodied,
individual being,—and that a human being, as distinguished from a
thing ? The term in its origin may have had a different signification; but
can any one deny that this is what is universally implied in its present use,
and has been for ages past 1 He then who confirms himself in the
notion that God exists in three separate, distinct, individual beings—whatever
he may say to the contrary—Aos an idea of three Gods in his mind; and in
the other life, where all disguises must ultimately be thrown off, it will so
appear, as Swedenborg declares is actually the case. And is not this the very
objection which has ever been urged by Jews, Mahometans, Unitarians, Deists,
Infidels, Philosophers, Indifferentists, against what is held forth as the “
Orthodox” faith ? And when the imputation is disclaimed, do not all these
parties add the charge of disingenuousness, to that of absurdity 1
Thousands who have renounced this article of their inherited faith, confess to
the truth of the statement, and solemnly declare that they know of multitudes
more in the same predicament, who honestly own it in private, but swallow it
without chewing as being “ a mystery.”
(2.) A translation of the Athanasian
Creed is now before me, and a part of t reads thus:—“ For as we are obliged by
the Christian verity, to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord, yet are
we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say there be three Gods
or three Lords.” The Catholic Prayerbook, entitled “ The Garden of the Soul,”
renders it thus—“ For as we are compelled by the Christian truth to
acknowledge every person, particularly,
to be God and Lord; so,” &c. by which precisely the same idea
is conveyed. Swedenborg acknowledged that this Creed was ambiguous, and
that the last sentence in it was susceptible of a true sense,—but that the
impression left by the whole was either contradictory,—or suggestive of three
Gods ; (an objection by no means peculiar to him but urged a thousand times
before, and its truth acknowledged by many who have subscribed it); and in
particular that the sentence above quoted, places the Catholic Religion in
opposition to Christian Truth, and inculcates the hypocrisy of holding one
opinion and saying another ! When, therefore, the Lecturer asserts that
“ the doctrine of one God is as integral a part of the doctrine of the
Trinity—(of course in his sense of this tenn)—as is that of three persons in
one God," we have only to reply that an unsophisticated mind can
scarcely conceive of a greater contradiction than that between the first and
'the last part of the sentence. Dr. P. professes to believe in one God—and that
a personal God as distinguished from the faith of the Pantheist,
or of certain Unitarians who acknowledge an impersonal “ somewhat.” But if
this one personal God be further subdivided into three persons,— what
is this but saying that three persons are one person !
(3.) We have just seen that Protestant
Churches make God three. The Confession of Faith says that in the second
person of the Trinity when incarnate, “ two whole and perfect natures,
the God-head and manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person,
without conversion, composition or confusion” (Chap. VIII., Sec. 2). Is
not this “ making the Lord two 1” They furthermore do believe in “
Justification by Faith alone," in instantaneous
regeneration, in the saving virtue of a death-bed repentance; and do not
make a good life indispensable to salvation. And the proof of this
could be as readily brought, as of the other.
(4.) The following statement from Swedenborg
is given as a specimen of profane ridicule. “ ‘The absurd, ludicrous and
frivolous ideas which have arisen from the doctrine of three persons from
eternity, and which arise with every one who remains in the belief of the words
of that doctrine, and from eyes and ears rise up into the sight of the thought,
are these : That God the Father sits above the head on high, and the Son at his
right hand, and the Holy Ghost before them listening, and forthwith running all
over the world; and according to their decision, he dispenses the gifts of
justification, and inscribes them and makes them, from sons of wrath, sons of
grace, and from condemned, elect. I appeal to the learned of the clergy and of
the laity, whether they entertain any other than this ideal view in their
minds.’ And 7 appeal to learned Trinitarians, the world over, whether they ever
entertained such a view as this" Fortunately we are not left,to
conjecture in this matter. The paintings in Catholic Churches, and books of
devotion, in English prayer books, the tenor of innumerable expositions and
controversies concerning the Trinity, and the honest confession of Protestants when
off their guard, the world over, place it beyond a doubt. M. Didron,
a French writer, in a recent work on what he calls “ Christian Iconography,”*
has traced back these “ artistic representations of the Trinity,” through
many centuries, and they were common to the whole Catholic World. The
doctrine of the Trinity being accepted by the Reformers entire; they have
inherited the same conceptions. Dr. P. may use a pious fraud and deny it. But
there is One who knows the heart, and readeth the thoughts, and who
cannot be deceived.
(5.) The “slander” here consists in
quotations direct from the “ Formula Concordia” (Br. Ex. 15). And what
says the Confession of Faith ? “ Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly
lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so
that as a natural man being altogether averse from that which is good,
and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself,
or to prepare himself thereunto.” And in effectual calling “ man is altogether
passive” (Chap. IX., Sec. 3, and Chap. X., Sec. 2). And though free-will is
asserted in one or two places, it is positively or virtually denied in a
score of others. Its contradictions we are not bound to reconcile. The
sensual are much more likely to avail themselves of its fatalism to justify
themselves in their evil courses, than to believe in the sincerity of its
warnings or exhortations.
(6.) If men can thus be brought to
believe that the entire race is under both condemnation and moral
paralysis—possessing power neither to will aright, nor to co-operate with their
Maker towards their salvation, without the special aid of the Holy Spirit; what
other mode of escape can they conceive for the few who are rescued, but
by the tender mercy of “Predestination ?” And if the whole “ family of Adam,”
except themselves are totally depraved, is it not natural that they
should also fancy that the merits of Christ are imputed to the
elect by the same arbitrary will ? The impossibility of this may be
demonstrated to them ; but what of that? The broad mantle of mystery will cover
all. There was one paragraph in this connection, which we read with special
surprise, as being probably the coolest instance of effrontery, in the entire
volume. “ The believers in predestination, according to Swedenborg, represent
God as having ‘ designed that the bulk of mankind should be born for hell—bom devoted
to destruction—born to be devils and satans;’ and that he ‘makes no
provision for those who lead good lives, and acknowledge God,
whereby they may escape everlasting fire and punishment.’ ‘ Some hold,’ says
he, ‘ that the life is of no effect, but election; and that
redemption into heaven is of mercy alone, whatever the life may have been.'
” It should be printed “ acknowledge (a) God.” Now we do not care to press
ungenerously the advantage afforded us by the imprudence of Dr. P. in bringing
this subject so conspicuously forward. We would willingly have given it the
go-by, as we are happy to know that this dogma, although it retains its place
in the Public Creeds, as held in private, is greatly modified from its original
grossness since Swedenborg wrote. The wholebody of Arminians, otherwise
sufficiently Orthodox, have repudiated it, with all its horrible consequences.
And many of those who subscribe to it are heartily ashamed of it, and would
gladly have it expunged from their “ stand-
The
curious may see a Review of it in the “ Christian Examiner,” for November,
1846. ards,” if they
knew hew it could be effected without endangering their whole system. In truth,
it is the hardest doctrine to compliment in the whole Confession of Faith ;
and that is saying a good deal. Dr. Porter complains, as we have seen, that it
is but rarely preached now-a-days; and Dr. Woods, who probably felt bound to
say a word in its behalf, used a very strong one indeed, but touched it as
rapidly as if it had been red-hot iron. We wonder that some kind friend did not
touch the elbow of our Bangor Professor, while writing, and warn him not to
give “ such cruel openings to the critics.” We would willingly oblige
our Evangelical friends in anything reasonable, but it is rather too much to
ask us to forget the whole History of the Reformation, the various Protestant
Confessions, the Articles of Doctrine, the -writings of Calvin and his
followers, the sermons we have heard, the tracts we have read, and the
Catechisms we have studied, or that there have been, and are, such people as Antinomians
in the world. And if we should be so complaisant, these documents are extant,
and there are others who would overhaul them.
But badinage apart. Swedenborg has set
forth some of the known peculiarities of Calvinists, in the broad language
of their advocates from whom the restraints of the flesh were removed, and
has therefore been charged with calumny. We might quote from the older
Calvinists, even stronger language than that of Swedenborg ; but, setting aside
the opinions of private Doctors, does this Reviewer believe the Confession of
Faith which he has subscribed 1 And what does that teach 2 (1.) The
election of a particular and unalterable number (Chap. III., Sec. 3,4, 5)—to whom
are confined “ the benefits of Redemption,” such as “ Effectual Calling,” “ the
gift of the Spirit to renew their wills,’1'1
pardon, reconciliation, justification, forgiveness of sins, adoption, faith; all
exclusively bestowed on that number, which is “so certain and definite,
that it can neither be increased or diminished !” (Chap. III., Sec. -6; VIIn
3; VIII., 1, 5 ; X., 1; XI., 1, 3, 4, 5 ; XII; XIV., 1). (2.) The certain
salvation of the elect, though they may often be “grievous sinners” (XVII., 1,
3; XVIII.,4). (3.) The loss of the •“ non-elect,” though virtuous (III., 4; X.,
4; XVI., 7). According to this faith the great majority, even in Christian
countries, are consigned ever to reprobation ; and if you would know its
tender mercies to the Heathen, hearken to the following response in the
Larger Catechism (Q. €0): “ They who having never heard the Gospel, know
not Jesus Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so
diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, or the laws of
that religion they profess 'and in the Confession it is added, " to
assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested!”
Think now of the virtuous indignation of this Reviewer, in repelling the charge
that “tire bulk of mankind,” in the opinion of Predestinarians, “ are born for
hell, whatever may have been their lives I”
(7.) The caricature” is as follows : “
What at this day more fills and crams the books of the orthodox, or what is
more zealously taught and inculcated in the schools, ®r more frequently
preached and proclaimed from the pulpits, than that God tire Father, being
arrayed against the human race, not only removed it from himself, but also
concluded it under a universal damnation, and thus excommunicated it; but
because he is gracious, that he persuaded or excited his Son to
descend, and take upon himself the determined damnation and thus appease the
anger of his Father j and that thus, and not otherwise he could look upon man
with some favor.” Though the style of preaching in New England, among the
Orthodox themselves, is revolutionized within half a century, yet is there a
man in the Southern or Western States who has been in the habit of attending
Calvinistie pulpits, that has not heard the substance of this paragraph,
times without number ? Before Swedenborg wrote, it was the burden of orthodox
preachers throughout the Reformed Churches, particularly hi England, Scotland,
and America, and this no one knows better than the Reviewer.
(8.) If the believers in
“justification by faith alone,” reason consequentially, and there will be no
lack of logical deductions from “ the principles of one's religion” when they
lead to agreeable conclusions; if they ean do nothing of themselves, and
if salvation be altogether an affair of election, why should they trouble
themselves about obedience to the commands, or perform the irksome duty of
self-examination ? Do they not confess their sins in the gross ? Is not the
debt paid 1 and shall they symbolise with Rome by imitating the confessional?
The licentious tendency of this dogma was early seen and lamented by observing
Protestants after the Reformation. The havoc it produced in three centuries,
who ean calculate ? The extreme relaxation of public morals in the last age, the
low standard of Christian character, the notorious negleet of this very duty,
even at this day, among Protestants, are a full justification of Swedenborg’s
statement. That there are symptons of approximation to a purer faith and a
more consistent life among Christians at the present time, it gives us pleasure
to believe ; though there is yet mneh to be learnt and done, before the
religion of the Bible ean have its due influence either on its votaries or on
those without.
(9.) If the Orthodox are really
permitted to think freely on all points of then- faith, why are so many of
them, nay its fundamental principles “ tabued,” and wrapt in a saered veil of
mystery ?
(10.) We suspect there are Lutherans
at the present day who would be greatly obliged to Dr. Pond if he would prove
to their satisfaction that the founder of their ehurch did not teach the
doctrine of “ Faith alone.” If he did not establish it as a part of the
Protestant Faith, then is he the most calumniated of men and every extant
history of the Reformation is a romance. Whatever of an opposite character may
be found in other parts of his works, they are said to contain the following
passages. “Let this be your rule in interpreting the Scriptures: wherever they
command any good work do you understand that they forbid it; because you
cannot perform it.”* “ God works the evil in us as well as the good. . .
The great perfection of faith consists in believing God to be just, although,
by his own will, He necessarily renders us worthy of damnation, so as to seem
to take pleasure in the torments of the miserable.”^ “ A Christiaoi eanuot lose
his soul do what he will, unless he refuse to believe for no sin can damn
but unbelief. God regards not our actions, nor what we may choose to doJ’J
“ Sin lustily, but be yet more lusty in faith and rejoiee in
De
Jew Arbit. f Opera,tom. 2, fol. 437. J De-Captiv. Babyl. tom. 2, fol-. 264-
Christ. From him no sin will sever ns,
though a million times a day we should commit uncleanness and murder.’'
That Calvin taught Election and
Reprobation and the “ final perseverance” of the Elect, we had supposed was
pretty notorious. We have not his works at hand, but as Dr. P. has brought
forward John Wesley as a competent witness on another occasion, we would
take leave to refer him to a tract by that author, entitled “ A Dialogue
between a Predestinariau and his friend,”f in which he has culled from the
pages of the Reformer and his followers Zanchy, Piscator, Peter Martyr,
Tuiss, &c. some of the choicest flowers which adorn his “ doctrine of
graceand among many others the following: I All men are not created for the
same end ; but some are foreordained to eternal life, others to eternal
damnation.’’^ “ God of his own good pleasure ordains that many should be born,
who are from the womb doomed to inevitable damnation. . . He therefore
foreknows all things that will come to pass, because he has decreed that they
shall come to pass.”g And in his Commentary on John vi. he says, “ God asks nothing
of us but that we believe.”
It was probably the recollection of
such passages that induced the Reviewer to confess “ that he would not say
there was absolutely nothing in the faith of Protestant Christendom at
the time of Swedenborg,” in accordance with his statements. They were taken
from the “ Formula Concordia:,”—an authorized symbol of the faith of the
German Churches. Dr. P. affects to think it bad authority, but the equivalents,
as we have seen, are to be found in the Westminstar Confession of Faith. They
were once set forth by the Church of England in her “Lambeth Articles.”|| And
as to Swedenborg having “distorted” their views, it might be as well for their
advocates to recollect, that however such shocking sentiments may be softened
or glossed over here, it is dangerous to confirm them, as in the other
life they must be spoken out without reserve (Matt. x. 26). (See App. A.)
Another count in this long indictment
is that “ Swedenborg speaks reproachfully of the Church of God.” The pretended
proofs are: (1.) The character he has given of the Jews—as a nation. He
tells us that they were “ natural men,” an “ external people,” not very capable
of spiritual ideas, as was proved by their proneness to idolatry, despite the
frequent miracles and constant blessings of Jehovah : and that they were
obstinate withal: that they were selected as the people of God, not because
they were better than other nations, or because there could be any such
thing as favoritism in the Father of all men, but because their national
genius fitted them for the observance of a ceremonial religion, which
might shadow forth truths of a higher order to be revealed under a future
dispensation. Such is the extent of his offence. We disdain to argue such a
question at any length ; for it is the very character which is given of them by
God himself,fl and re-echoed by the Apostles of our Lord : it is con
finned by their
entire history from the Exode to the present day: by the suffrages of
nine-tenths of mankind who know them, and its every trait is proved by the
account of them recently given by one of themselves. And the Reviewer himself
has read the full confirmation of it from their own books in one of the volumes
he has “pondered.”* (See Append. B.) But this Reviewer calls iu question the
assertions of Swedenborg as to certain matters of fact—to which we briefly
reply: (1.) That every body knows that
Bishop Warburton's
great work “ The Divine Legation of
Moses” was based on the idea that I it was not even declared to them openly
that they should live after death,” who also concurs with our author in his
estimate of this nation as is proved by the following: “ Why, let me ask, had
the law a spiritual sense under a carnal cover, but for this reason,
that the Jews were so grossly minded as to be incapable of spiritual things,
and were therefore, in order to direct and govern their affections, presented
with the carnal to repose upon ?—that schoolmaster, as Paul calls the law,
which was to bring them by degrees through those carnal elements to the
spiritual and sublime doctrines of Christ ”f If “ they did know that the Lord
would come into the world to save them,” why did they put Jesus to death ? If “
the mysteries of faith were really revealed to them” why did they so generally
reject Paul’s true exposition of them in his Epistle to the Hebrews 2 And did
not the Lord himself tell them that they “ had made the word of God of none
effect through their traditions ?”
Such is the statement of Swedenborg
concerning the Jews as a people. But that “ he makes no exceptions, nor
allows us to make any,” is a calumny such as can only be found in other parts
of this book. A distinction is properly taken between the public and private
character of personages mentioned in the Jewish history of the Old
Testament—but he intimates nothing unfavorable as to the present state of many
of the prophets and others who are therein commended for their zeal in behalf
of the true worship. The Apostles and many of the early Christians were Jews.
He expressly declares that the former are among the blessed. It is well known
that there are two classes of Hebrews, to one of whom—the Portuguese, for
example—is conceded a marked superiority over their brethren from other
regions, and a frequent exemption from their peculiar prejudices. In the “
intermediate state”—which Swedenborg declares is the place of instruction
for the well-disposed, who, being unfavorably situated while here for attaining
to true religious knowledge, give it a ready welcome on their arrival there—he
further informs us that of these there are whole Synagogues who become
converted to the true Christian Faith, and that the process is constantly going
on (L. J. Cor. 79, 80 ; T. C. R. 841, 842). There are moreover Jews in England,
and on the Continent of Europe—in America and the West Indies—who have adopted
the principles of Swedenborg, which they would scarcely have done if they had
thought that he belied their nation.
(2.)
What constitutes a Church'? Do temples and worshipers and an organized priesthood
who preach a particular doctrine to their followers 2 These things may indicate
a Religion, but not necessarily a Church. The doctrine of a true Church
should itself be true : true, not only as revealed originally from the source
of Truth, but as having beeu kept pure. But we learn from past history, that
churches are not always true to their trust. The Jews utterly corrupted the
doctrine committed to their charge and apostatized, whereby their Church
came to an end—though it has continued as a religion to the present time. But
further, man is a progressive being. The modicum of religious truth which might
suffice for his instruction in the early periods of his history, would be
utterly inadequate to his wants in the more advanced stages of his progress. In
this aspect, one dispensation may be simply a preparation for another. “ Had
the Jewish Church continued faithful to their covenant, yet their
dispensation being only preparatory, would have ceased at the institution of
Christianity. . . Not that the truths it taught should cease, for this would be
impossible, but they would have been regarded simply as elementary in
relation to the higher truth or greater degree of light which had succeeded”
(Clissold). And might not the same with propriety be said of the first Christian
Church. The fundamentals of all true religion are the acknowledgment of a God,
and a life according to his commandments; but what God ? It is natural that man
should desire to know the Divinity he worships. The primitive Christians had
believed in simplicity that in Jesus Christ the Father dwelt, with whom
he was one; and sought not to explain how, because he had
declared to his disciples, and through them to the Church, “ that he had many
things to say to them which they could not then bear, but that
the time would come when he would show them plainly of the Father.”
This promise of him who is faithful and true cannot fail. When fulfilled there
must of course be an addition to, and in that respect a change in
the doctrine of his Church, even if they had preserved and made a proper use of
what was first imparted. But alas ! he also predicted that they too would prove
unfaithful. Not content to wait with patience until they had made themselves
worthy the explanatiou, and He should vouchsafe it, they strove to work it out
by their own self-derived intelligence. In Council and Synod they divided or
multiplied their God into three persons; and as tliis was an unintelligible
mystery, they made a great merit of believing it. They mistook also the nature
and kind of obedience required. At a later day, as faith in a temporal God and
the other dogmas which by this time had been added thereto, required a still
greater effort they made it so very meritorious as to be well nigh a substitute
for all other obedience. The progress of error is by slow and sometimes
imperceptible degrees. But when once the Church has departed from either of
the fundamental principles laid down above, it is impossible to foresee the
extent of her ab- erations. Questions innumerable arose in the course of
centuries and were discussed without leading to satisfactory conclusions, or
without one of them being determined. The sad history of strife, and heresy,
and schism, and subdivision without end, and the consequent uncertainty and
darkness which brooded over the entire field of doctrine, we need not
recapitulate.
How is this disgraceful aud calamitous
scene to be brought to a close. The sword in the hands of a Mahomet might
settle the question for Orientals, but not for Europeans or their descendants.
It is not probable or desirable that we shall see either a general return of
nations under the Homan yoke, or continued submission to religions
selected or made by the authorities of States. Is mere learning
to reconcile parties, by showing the errors of all? Germany has pretty well
proved the futility of such a hope. Is religious freedom and the right
of inquiry and discussion to effect the object? Look abroad over the face of
the country. Here we have “ the largest liberty;” but alas 1 the authoritative
religion, and the political religions, and the dissenting religions, have all
been imported, and propagated, and multiplied, and divided, and the rank soil
has shot up a few indigenous ones of its own, until it has come to be said that
“ if any man on earth has lost his religion and will come to the United States,
he may chance to find it.” And what are we to hope from con troversy as
growing out of the mutual collision of opinion among these several bodies ?
Such collision is inevitable, and without doubt, if the differences be
moderated by a spirit of charity and a love of truth for its own sake, some
truth would be elicited and the evils we deplore be much mitigated. But who
that know anything of the Sectarian feeling and of the spirit of party when
brought into religious concerns, hopes for so favorable a result, especially
when the various champions can often bring nothing but probable reasons for
their several opinions ? “ The Church in general,” says Mr. Clissold, “ I believe,
imder her present circumstances, has no hope of the disputes being terminated.
Occasionally they seem to die away, but only with renewed vigor to re-appear.
The same discussions occur over and over again, upon gabellian- ism, Tritheism,
and Arianism; the same upon the doctrine of satisfaction, imputation,
repentance, justification by faith, and goods works; the same upon predestination,
baptism, transubstantiation, and every other doctrine; questions which
are no more settled now than when they first originated. Hence we are
reminded of the observation of the Rev. John Newton, “ I see the unprofitableness
of controversy in the case of Job and his friends; for if God had not
interposed, and they had lived to this day, they would have continued
the dispute." May we not pray that God should interpose ?”
We rejoice to believe that he has.
In the nature of things there can be but one true system of doctrine, which of
necessity excludes whatever is not congruous with itself. Emanuel Swedenborg,
as we are satisfied on the most deliberate inquiry, was enabled to trace that
system in the Scriptures and to declare it to the world. In comparing
therewith the different systems which were taught in the various churches in
Christendom, he stated the simple fact that there was not a single truth of the
word which had not been more or less corrupted by them. He also announced the
farther fact, which could be known to him only of all men, that that church had
been adjudged, and had spiritually
come to an end! and that it must in time be succeeded by a New
Christian Church. Now with whatever incredulity this may have been received at
the time, subsequent events have led many a thoughtful mind to believe it not
improbable. Many of these considerations are brought together in a particular
section of Noble’s Appeal—but with his usual honesty Dr. P. takes special care
to notice none of them. And in pretending to restate what Swedenborg has said
on this subject, he has excelled himself in his efforts to excite the odium of
his brethren against him and his followers, and asks indig-
nantly “ Are these things so ?
Has the church, which Christ and his Apostles instituted, been spiritually
overthrown, for almost a hundred years ? During all this time, has Christ had
no real, spiritual church in the world, except the little handful of
Swedenborgians ? There are church organizations and ordinances indeed; but are
they, and have they been, mere dead forms 1 Has all spiritual life and
holiness—everything which goes to give vitality and energy to a church, ceased
1” “ He will not degrade himself, forsooth, nor his profession by undertaking
to answer these questions 1” but subjects himself to the greater reproach of
designing to produce a false impression by omitting all the explanations with
which the author has accompanied his statement. Does Swedenborg attach
exclusive blame to the Christians of his day for the errors of their faith ?
How could he ? They did not make their creeds. It was their misfortune rather
than their fault that they were born under such a system; and is he therefore
their enemy because he was commissioned to tell them the truth, and to offer
them a better ? Does he predict that the old organizations will be immediately
overthrown 1 On the contrary he declares that “ the state of the
world hereafter will be quite similar to what it has been heretofore, for
the great change which has been effected in the spiritual world, does not
induce any change in the natural world as regards the outward form: so that the
affairs of states, peace, treaties, and wars, with all other things which
belong to societies of men, in general, and in particular, will exist in the
future, just as they existed in the past.” . . . “ But as for the state of the
church, this it is which will be dissimilar hereafter; it will be
similar indeed in the outward form, but dissimilar in the inward. 7b outward
appearance divided churches will exist as heretofore, their doctrines will be
taught as heretofore; and the same religions as now, will exist among the
Gentiles. But henceforth the man of the church will be in a more free state
of thinking on matters of faith, that is on spiritual things which relate
to heaven, because spiritual liberty has been restored to him." . . .
“I have had various converse with the angels, concerning the state of the
church hereafter. They said that things to come they know not, for that the
knowledge of things to come belongs to the Lord alone but that they do know
that the slavery and captivity in which the man of the church was formerly, is
removed, and that now, from restored liberty, he can better perceive interior
truths, if he wills to perceive them, and thus be made more internal if he
wills it but that still they have slender hope of the
men of the Christian church” (L. J. 73, 74). When
this prediction of the advent of spiritual liberty was first written, there
were no outward indications of its approach. But we presume the most sceptical
would scarcely doubt it now. It appears also that a long time may pass before
the various systems of error shall be abandoned. But does Swedenborg intimate
that thenceforth there would be no spiritual Christians but his own professed
followers ? At that time they had not been organized. Truth is certainly not a
thing indifferent, and should exist in purity somewhere in the world; and he
has also shown us how the church which teaches it may be the medium of a good
influence, to others without the latter being aware of the channel through
which it flows. He assures us moreover that no one will be condemned for mere
error of the head: for mistakes, or false opinions, imbued by the force of
inevitable circumstances—unless they be appropriated and confirmed, or
carried out into the life. The true church consists of all who “
ackowledge the Lord” and “ have the word” and live according to its
requirements (H. D. 242,245). And even others—Mahometans and heathens—all of
whom Dr. P. sends to perdition—will be admitted to all the happiness of which
they are capable—if they have lived up to the light they possess. The good
which Protestants have is from the word, which they read and study more
than their creeds—the which last multitudes never read at all as this
Reviewer very well knows; or if they do, they take the liberty of dissenting
from many parts of them and pass lightly over others as mysteries.
(3.) In the Memorable Relations of
Swedenborg we read that in the exercise of his privilege of intercourse with
the departed, he was permitted interviews with the celebrated Reformers,
Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin. He declares it to be a law of heaven that
all fundamental error must be surrendered before the holder can be admitted
within its pale; and that until this clog is removed, whatever may have
been the previous character of the individual, he is detained in the world of
spirits. Of the two former he relates that the dogma of justification by
faith alone, which they had made the fundamental principle of their
religion, had become so deeply inrooted hi their very spirits that they found
it extremely difficult to be divested of it: that the process was slow and
attended at times with severe suffering—though there was hope that they would
ultimately yield up this very serious error, and justify the past hopes and
expectations of all Protestants as to their admission to the society of the
blessed. Of the third, who, it is feared, had confirmed himself in the still
more dreadful idea of Predestination, and resolved all religious truth
into that one principle, his account is yet more unfavorable, though he does
not inform us that this is his final destination.
The indignation of our Reviewer on
this occasion, as was to be expected, is stirred up to its depths. It is
evident also that he thinks the game is all his own. So very sure is he of the
effect of the narrative, that he gives it with but few of his embellishments
and leaves the prejudices of the reader to make their own comments. The
distinguished career of each of these individuals in connexion with a religious
revolution which has remotely given to society the form and pressure they wear
at present, has entrenched their memories so strongly in the regard of,
Protestants generally, that if any reputations could be placed beyond
contingency, it might be supposed to be theirs. However painful then, or
unexpected the disclosure, is that alone a sufficient reason for doubting its
truth 1 It is not for Dr. P. to deny the possibility of such interviews.
The presumption certainly is that they occurred:; for nothing would be more
natural than that Swedenborg should employ his peculiar gift to ascertain the
destiny of the reputed Reformers of Religion. And having done so, what motive
had he to misstate the result ? If his proceeding in relation hereto had been
left in any degree to his own discretion, the most ordinary prudence would have
led him to make as favorable a report as possible and to suppress whatever
might disturb the sensibilities of his followers. Lutheranism was the established
religion of Sweden and of the greater part of Protestant Germany. The father
of Swedenborg was a Lutheran: he was nominally one himself. Melancthon was the
coadjutor of Luther. His statement then must needs offend the prejudices of
thousands besides his own countrymen. And yet he committed it to writing.
Supposing it to be true, can Dr. P. think that the followers of Swedenborg
would take any pleasure in reading such a narrative ? They must have
hardened their hearts into all the sternness of Calvinism before they could
learn otherwise than with pain that men who had purged off many of the
corruptions of Rome, and were otherwise useful in restoring religious freedom,
and the word of life to the laity—should nevertheless have employed pious
frauds and inculcated fearful errors—some of them worse than those they
rejected ? Without forgetting then that Swedenborg has spoken hopefully of the
final state of the two first, and that it was with surprise and regret he
learned the condition of the third; if he could have been guilty of the crime
of slandering the distinguished dead, why we ask, did he not include in his
libels others both Protefetants and Romanists, whose views are quite as much or
more opposed to his own than those of the leading Reformers ? But the
supposition is refuted by the character which the Reviewer himself has accorded
to him. As “ a gentleman” Swedenborg would have spumed the thought in either
case; as a “ moral” man he would not have dared to stain his conscience with
such an offence : as one who “ religious” and “ sincere” he would have shrunk
from the suggestion with horror.
But let us look a little more narrowly
at the character of these men, and see if the narrative is so very improbable
after all. Posterity claims and exercises the right to pass in review the
conduct of all without exception • and the lapse of three centuries should in
this case be favorable to a dispassionate 'udgment. Does Dr. Pond with all his
inherited respect for their names—confirmed as that may have been by his own
independent inquiry—believe that either of them was perfect or infallible—a
Saint or a Pope ? It is possible, in the abstract, for a man to hold and preach
true doctrine without imbibing its spirit or exemplifying it in his life
; and was there not something in the acts and opinions of each and of all which
no charity could overlook, no sophistry excuse ? Luther did establish
the doctrine of “ faith alone,” and Melancthon aided him in the enterprise. All
amiable and mild as he was, he subdued his own superior intellect, and bent his
will almost to the degree of merging his individuality in that of his imperious
leader—and having thus become a partaker of his offences, he could not escape
a like retribution. Luther had pithily said, “ that the mind of man was like a
drunken peasant on horseback; prop him up on one side and he will tumble over
on the other.” Can we find in all history a better exemplification of the truth
of his adage than himself? He was familiar with the ceremonial works of the
Romanists; was aware that multitudes placed their hopes of salvation on a
compliance with these forms. Being bent on separating from a system so
corrupting, nothing more effective of that purpose occurred to his impetuous
zeal than the establishment of the opposite doctrine—however clearly
paradoxical to unprejudiced minds. If any part of Scripture stood in his path,
he would evade its force, pervert the language of Paul, reject the Epistle of
James as an Epistle of straw, until by an after-thought—the fallacy of which is
clear to the observation of every man of sense—he cudeavored to patch up an
appearance of consistency between his own systems and the obstinate
declarations of the sacred text, with the gratuitous assertion “ that a true
faith necessarily produces good works." That Luther’s peculiar opinions
were either his own fond fancies or mere pretexts for separation from Rome, may
also be inferred from the fact that they are now generally abandoned in his own
country, and iu the churches which are called by his name; after having
arrested the Reformation, thrown all Europe into an uproar, and done infinite
injury both to morals and religion. Dr. P. may dismiss the idea of
inconsistency in Swedenborg’s account of Calvin. They appeared in two different
works, published with an interval of eight years. The last (T. C. R. 796-798)
describes his several and successive states during his long stay in the
intermediate world. The first speaks of the third stage (Con. L. J. 54,)
(the only one then known to Swedenborg,) in which he was admitted into a
certain society of the lower heaven, “ because he appeared well-disposed and made
no disturbances." His real character was afterwards developed. And
should any one who reflects on the authenticated facts of this man’s history be
surprised at such a denouement ? His imperious temper, his intolerance
of all opposition which threatened serious rivalship, his disingenuous
treatment of opponents, have been noticed by others. It might be in bad taste
to recal the oft-repeated story of his unrepented persecution of Servetus ;
for we take no pleasure in this species of retort. But there were circumstances
connected with that affair which are but little known in the Republic of
Letters, but which have an especial bearing on this controversy, and to which
we feel bound to advert. It was not alone that Calvin—inflamed with resentment
that he had been worsted in argument by Servetus—threatened that if the latter
ever came to Geneva he should not leave it alive : that he is believed to have
instigated the trial of the Spaniard for heresy in a French town : or that
Servetus having effected his escape and passing through Geneva, was kidnapped
at the instance of Calvin, tried for an offence which was committed elsewhere,
before a tribunal to which he was not responsible, condemned to death, “
delivered over to the secular arm” and burnt. This most atrocious act was
approved by Me- lancthon! justified by the Swiss churches generally,
defended by Beza his coadjutor and successor, and we may safely say was the
remote cause of the decline of the Reformed Religion in France. For those who
before thought they were contending for religious freedom, now found that the
only result was likely to be a change of tyrants, and they made choice of the
more splendid tyranny. Sad, we say, was the fate of Servetus, even in this
aspect: but this is a trifle compared with the injustice he has otherwise
suffered. In being thus taken away, a few short years were lopped off from his
troubled career; and the firmness with which he endured his martyrdom gave him
no cause of selfreproach. But his character was blackened, his opinions
misrepresented; he was branded as a heretic, blasphemer, atheist; and for three
centuries has his memory been traduced by the unwearied zeal of the followers
of his persecutor, and borne a reproach which it never deserved. For, be
it known, Michael Servetus believed in
the sole and supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ: and the proof of this
will in time be given to the public. We can readily understand then why it is
that Calvinists at this day are so prompt to denounce this fundamental doctrine
of the true Christian Religion. They are but following in the footsteps of
their great master—and as far perhaps as the spirit of the age will permit.
And now we ask, does this Reviewer
believe that, despite these serious blemishes on their characters, these men merited
heaven by their services to the cause of the Reformation 1 This would be
to pick up an idea which they themselves professed to repudiate. Or that it is
not to be supposed that learned Doctors who studied the Word so profoundly and
propagated their doctrine so widely could be other than the best of men. Hear
then the judgment of Paul. “ Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels . . and though I have the
gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge; and
though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” “ I keep my body under, lest having preached
to others I myself should he a castaway.” The sentiment of gratitude to
spiritual benefactors is natural to man, and when exercised with due
discrimination is to be highly commended. We recognize and honor the
services rendered to Christianity by the Reformers, but we also think that
there are serious drawbacks to their claims. And have they not been more than
repaid ? Is it not enough that they h ave for three centuries been canonized
and honored with a degree of veneration but little short of idolatry ? That to
this hour they rule over the faith of millions, and that the destiny of other
millions and of states has been shaped by their course ? But must their false
views of the character of God- • of the character of man and the world : their
misinterpretation of the Divine Oracles,i and the gloom they have cast over the
face of religion be also perpetuated ? And are our obligations to them like
the debt to our Maker, “ a debt immense of endless gratitude ?”
A moral of impressive, of fearful
importance is to be drawn from the destiny of the Jews and the lot of the
Reformers. While reflecting on the blind confidence, the narrow vision, and
the fallible judgment of man, a voice from beyond the veil which separates the
spiritual world from ours, comes as in solemn warning against the
danger of mingling the foul spirit of party with the benign spirit of
religion, or of attempting to promote a desirable end by unjust or equivocal
means. Uzzah was smitten for putting his hand to the ark, and he who trifles
with sacred truth, or would employ it to further his ambitious or selfish ends,
does either at the peril of his soul. And the same voice repeats, as in
thunder-tones, that though the Divine Providence may use any and every man as
instruments to effect his purposes according to the fitness which they have
induced on themselves, yet that God is no respecter of persons or nations;
that there is nothing covered which shall not be revealed: and that he
will not change his truth or bend his everlasting laws to accommodate them to
the systems of self-derived intelligence.
(4.) We are not now to learn from Dr.
P. or Bishop Hall, what the Synod of Dort was. The decrees and acts of
that packed jury—their previous intrigues, their subsequent persecutions,
are before the world, and have at length received the unanimous condemnation
of all but Calvinists. It seems that even
8
die stomach of this Reviewer cannot
digest all their proceedings. That a Scotsman and a Calvinist should swallow
them a little better, is not surprising —with such an one this has well nigh
become a point of honor—and having done so the epithets “ holy,” “
guarded,” and “ reverential!” are as easily used as any other. If any man wants
to know what was the product of their incubation, let him read Tilenus’
account of their proceedings and acts. Calvinists say this is a libel, and a
very customary apology with them is, “ that they do not themselves draw the
odious inferences from their doctrines which are deduced by others.” But can
that be a just or true principle, the inferences from which, when fairly
drawn, nay inevitable, are so shocking as to be instantly repudiated by all
healthy minds 2
(5.) The Moravians, or
followers of Count Zinzendorf, were favorably known during the last century for
their zeal in carrying, what they called the Gospel, to inhospitable or
barbarous climes. Since the spirit of missions has revived or arisen in other
religious bodies, we do not learn that they have been peculiarly distinguished
hi this respect. Nominally Lutherans, in their writings the Reformer’s doctrine
of Justification is carried to an extreme. The body, we believe, has never been
very large, but is completely organized : and so entirely separated from the
community around them as to constitute a sort of imperium in imperio.
Such a body must of course be under a separate regimen. In this case, the
government is of the strictest order; the control of affairs being vested in a secret
conclave who demand and enforce the most entire obedience. Swedenborg has
intimated that in his day, the leaders of this conclave, and
such of their subordinates as were “ initiated into their mysteries,” held a secret
heretical doctrine at variance with their public tenets, and which they did not
impart to the mass; also that the lives of some of them in private were such as
did not altogether become their profession. We suppose he was well-informed,
and can conceive of no stronger motive for misrepresentation here than in other
cases. Prompted by this unexpected statement to examine into the constitution
of this sect, we became satisfied that such an irresponsible power was extremely
liable to abuse, and to just such abuses as Swedenborg has pointed out. Nor is
he alone, for Smollett, the historian, has placed on record similar
charges;* in which, however, it is to be understood the body generally is not
involved, for Swedenborg elsewhere commends the mass of the members for their
simple and sincere piety—strongly resembling that of the primitive Christians.
(6.) Again I our Reviewer is disturbed
that Louis XIN. of France and Pope Sextus V., according to
Swedenborg, should have attained a happier lot than some of the great
professors of religion among the Protestants. If we mistake not, he believes
that even “ the thief repented on the cross,” and he will scarcely deny that
Nebuchadnezzar, after a long and successful course of ambition and conquest,
was arrested in his career of pride : was punished : repented and
acknowledged the true God. And do we not learn from faithful history that Louis
XIV., in his latter years, repented of his career—in many respects
similar: having been brought to reflection by adversity, that he re
Vol. IV. p. 122, Con. of Hume formed his
life : became hopefully pious after the Roman model, and that his example
influenced his whole court 1 What other reparation could he make 1 But
he disliked Calvinism, and Jansenism, its Roman twin-brother—and
there’s the rub.
And Sextus Quintns, with some defects
of character, has generally been regarded as the most earnest of all the Popes,
hi his efforts to reform the Catholic Church. The treasure which he had accumulated
to be applied to great public objects, which he did not live to accomplish, has
furnished the pretext for charging him with personal avarice. But our Professor
has changed all this.
Having thus disposed of the “
misrepresentations” and “ slanders,” we come now to the charge I of
contradicting the facts of history.” And here the accuser is more moderate
than under some other heads, seeing his sharp optics have only detected some
seven or eight instances, which we will pass in review. Thus Swedenborg has
taught (1.) That the first eleven chapters of Genesis were not literal history,
but written in an allegorical style, or according to what he calls the “
correspondence between natural and spiritual things.” (2.) That there has never
been a universal deluge of waters on earth since the creation of man.
(3.) That sacrificial worship was first instituted by Eber, having been
unknown before. (4.) That a Trinity of Persons was unknown in the Apostolical
Church, and first broached by the Nicene Cmincil. (5.) That the faith
imputative of the merit of Christ was also unknown in the Apostolic Church, but
arose from the decrees of the same Council, by the misinterpretation of a
single expression of Paul, in Rom. iii. 28. (6.) That the Apostle's Creed was
the Creed of the Apostolic Church. (7.) That the Athanasian Creed was written
soon after the Council of Nice, by one or more of those who had been present at
that Council; and thence was received as Catholic. (8.) That there is an
internal or spiritual sense iu the Word, “is a truth which has been heretofore
altogether unknown in the Christian world,” and again, “ The
Spiritual Sense of the Word hath been heretofore unknown.”
(1.) The subject of a Spiritual Sense
in Scripture will be more particularly treated in the sequel. At present we
observe, that it argues but little respect for the intelligence of his readers,
that a Protestant Professor of Theology’ should tell them at this day, that a
denial of the literal truth of the early chapters of Genesis, was therefore a
denial of an ascertained historical fact. That part of the Mosaic narrative, in
its more obvious import, has proved a fertile source of objection for Infidels,
and the more judicious and liberal Christian advocates have long since seen the
necessity of modifying the explanations which were accepted as satisfactory
several centuries since; when all apparent contradictions and other
difficulties were solved by the single phrase, “ the Omnipotence of Deity.” The
ascertained facts of Geology were inconsistent with the supposed account
of creation, and this has led to one modification, now generally received by
evangelicals themselves, hi spite of the conservative bigotry of their
brethren. The accounts of the fall of man, of the ages of the Antediluvians, of
the flood, and of the Mosaic chronology, are all attended with insuperable
difficulties on the old hypotheses; all of which has been acknowledged by
candid, and learned, and pious theologians, who yet believed and taught the
inspiration of the Scriptures, and of this portion with the rest. Thus Dr.
Henry More, in his “Philosophical Cabbala,” has vindicated the first three chapters of
Genesis, from the charge of teaching the absurdities, which mistaken zealotshad
fathered on them. Dr. Thomas Burnet, has done the same. Dr. Conyers
Middleton,f in his learned “ Essay on the Allegorical and literal
interpretation of the Creation and Fall of man,” gives an exposition
approximating very near to that of Swedenborg, and says that this or something
similar is supported by the authority of the most learned of the Ancient
Fathers, who in their defences of Christianity against the Infidel, always
explained the narrative in the same way. More recently, Coleridge^ has
followed in the same track, and assures us on the authority of Bishop Horsley,
that the Church of England did not require belief in the literal
truth of the story as here recorded, “divines of the most unimpeachable
orthodoxy having, from the earliest ages of Christianity, adopted or permitted
it in this instance” That the first eleven chapters of Genesis may
be regarded as figurative or allegorical, without detriment to one's orthodoxy,
was conceded by Sir William Jones,% who also acknowledges that many
learned and pious divines have thought the same. Now all this either was or
ought to have been known to Dr. Pond, who has yet made it as much matter of
offence in Swedenborg, as if none but Infidels had ever done the same.
(2.) The accounts of the deluge, and
the supposed proof of the institution of sacrificial worship earlier than the
time of Heber (Gen. vi. 4; viii. 20), are both included in these eleven
chapters. If these are figurative, of course they cannot be regarded as
historical facts. Geologists, in return for the privilege of
questioning the literal truth of the Mosaic history of Creation, had
pretended to deduce from appearances on the surface of the Earth, evidences of
the Mosaic history of the Deluge; buttheir hypotheses were various and
inconsistent with each other; and of late, there are symptoms of a determination
on the part of these savans to witlidraw this unwilling tribute. If we
mistake not, science has demonstrated that, without a new creation, all the
water on the globe would not form a stratum fifteen cubits above the highest mountains
known at present; and that such an addition would disturb the balance of the
Solar System. It is not very long since Dr. J. Pye Smith, a highly Evangelical
clergyman of England, endeavored to recall his brethren to more rational views
by maintaining, in a learned dissertation, that the flood spoken of by Moses
was but partial. Coming from that quarter, the book was a startling
phenomenon, and the sensation it produced, in full correspondence ; will Dr. P.
turn his weapon on him also 1
(3.) Swedenborg declared that the spiritual
significance of animals was known to the most Ancient Church; and that with
the Church which succeeded, they were representative of Spiritual
Affections, both of which positions he explains at length, but that they were
not used in sacrifice proper: viz. slain for that purpose in the
temple-worship, until the time of Heber (A. C. 2180).
Such Scriptures as the following (Jer.
vii. 21-23; Ps. xl. 6, 8 ;1. 9. 14: li. 16,17; cvii. 22; cxvi. 17; Hos. vi. 6:
1 Sam. xv. 22; Micah vi. 6-8; Dan. Lx. 27), leave the impression that bloody
offerings are neither acceptable to God, nor suited to human nature in its
better state, but were permitted in accommodation to human weakness. Until this
critic shall establish by some better argument, that what precedes is literal
history, we shall most probably continue to give credence to the statement of
Swedenborg.
(4.) A Trinity of persons was
unknown to the Apostolic Church. If this had been a part of the
primitive faith, and recognized as such from the beginning, the Arian heresy
could never have risen to its formidable height. A few private Christians, in
their simplicity, while reflecting on the then mysterious subject, may
have fallen on such a notion, but the Niceue was the first Council which
broached or established it, and this is all that Swedenborg says. If Dr. P. can
find a trace of such a dogma in the acts of any preceding Synod, he might aid
his cause by bringing it to view.
(5.) The early Christians, though not
deficient in faith, were distinguished for the purity of their lives,
and for their charity towards their brethren. By these traits were they
specially known. They were, therefore, not so much indined to seek out
the plausible pretexts for shunning their duty, which afterwards so generally
obtained. Until the Nicene Council had divided the Deity into three persons,
how could it be pretended that one of them had waived his own daims,
and undertaken to satisfy the justice of the other two 1 and how could
it be thought that the bare belief of such a proposition would be im puted to
them as a ground of merit ? It was not so easy then, before this, to
misunderstand “the single expression'1 of Paul, in Rom. iii. 28.
For, as the context both there and in corresponding passages (v. 1; Gal. ii.
16) shows, that by “ works of the law,” he meant the observance of the
Ceremonial law of the Jews, which was now abrogated. To Jewish converts was
he addressing himself, and he is combating the error of those who maintained
that the law of Moses was still binding on them, and to be likewise imposed on
their Gentile brethren; and he elsewhere especially contrasts such works
with “good works” (comp. 9 and 10 verses of Eph. ii.). By “the faith of Jesus
Christ,” is to be understood his system and precepts, as distinguished
from Rabbinical prescriptions, or the speculative and ethical systems of
philosophers. To say that Paul taught “justification by faith,” is an
evasion nothing short of contemptible. Does he anywhere say that we are
justified by faith alone, as that phrase is now understood, exclusive of
the moral law! Dr. P. knows very well that he does not. And even if he
had it would not only have proved his inconsistency with our Lord, and the
Evangelists and other Apostles, but also with himself. For, as might be
shown by a score of passages from his Epistles, no one insists more strongly or frequently on
the necessity of charity and good works. Swedenborg recognized the decision of
the Nicene Council as the remote, and the misapprehension of Paul, as
the proximate cause of the heresy to which he alluded, and this, our
sapient critic thinks, is a great “ inconsistency !”
(6.) Dr. P. says, “it is not likely
that the Apostles wrote the Creed that goes by their name, nr any part of
it, or that they ever saw or sanctioned it" That
Swedenborg is • •certainly
mistaken," when he says it “was the Creed
of the Apostolic Church." What says Lord King, who wrote the
standard work on the subject, and probably knew quite as much about it as our
Bangor Professor ? “It is exceedingly difficult to find out the precise
framers of it. The authors were many, and the composure a work of time. One
part of it was used by the Apostles [the very part referred to by
Swedenborg], and left by them to their successors! Tire Creed was
always demanded at baptism, both by. the Apostles, and by those who came
after them. The other part of the Creed was afterwards added by tire rulers of
the Church, in opposition to heresies as they appeared and sprung up.” He then
shows in what sense the Apostles are said to be the authors of one part,
and the succeeding governors of the Church, of the other. (Bayle's Diet.,
Art., Lord King. Note B.)
(7.) Lord King has likewise made a
suggestion which renders the statement of Swedenborg with respect to the Athanasian
Creed, entirely probable, independent of the latter’s credibility as a
witness, which, by this time can hardly be shaken by the hasty dictum of
this critic, in the opinion of any honest reader. According to his
Lordship, “ A Creed among the early Christians was termed ‘ a symbol,’
which term was taken from military affairs, where it denotes the watchwords or signs,
by which soldiers knew each other; which is, however, not the full and proper
signification of the word, but it is rather to be derived from the marks and
tokens used by the idolatrous Pagans in their sacred rites, ealled by them symbola,
which were two-fold, either mute or vocal. ‘He gives instances of both, and
proves them to have been’ secret marks or words revealed only to those who
were initiated in their mysteries, by means of which they were known to
each other, and had free admission wheresoever they came, to the services of
those deities; whose symbols they had received • and that from the same
reasons, and in allusion thereunto, the Creed was called a Symbol by the
primitive authors” (Ibid). Such was the custom of secret societies
of old; such is their custom now. Certain signs, pass-words, or more
lengthened formula, by whieh brethren, though strangers, may recognise each
other, are given orally, with exactness, and are forbidden to be committed
to writing. How natural, in the height of their differences, when both
parties claimed to be Christians, and the orthodox wished some means of distinguishing
a true brother from an Arian in disguise, that this method should be adopted.
Now the Athanasian Creed, according to Waterland and others, has been
traced to the fifth century. The Council met in the fourth. Is it so improbable
then that “it was composed by one or more of those who had been present at the
Council,” and circulated for less than a century, as a secret symbol,
and, of course, required to be given exactly and from memory,
though its purport may have been often and otherwise given? The Creed
itself was afterwards made public, probably because the victorious party
regarded secrecy in this particular, as no longer necessary.
(8.) Many have believed that there was
a Spiritual Sense in Scripture, or a part of it. But though conjectured,
the Spiritual Sense, running through the entire Word, was unknown,
and only guessed at, until Swedenborg demonstrated its truth. Such we take to
be his meaning.
We come now to a new series of pretended
blunders—those which relate to matters of Science. In reading this
little volume, its several parts have given rise to a variety of emotions, some
to a feeling of surprise at the ignorance of tire writer, others to a sentiment
of indignation at his misrepresentations, to all appearance deliberate : when
viewed as a whole to a still stronger feeling at the ill-concealed but unworthy
purpose which pervades it throughout. We cannot say that we have been edified
by any portion of it, but the part now under review has certainly afforded us
some amusement. Other critics, numerous and competent, and some of whom did
not accept the theology of Swedenborg, have given him credit both for
philosophical genius and scientific attainments. During his life, as we have seen,
his reputation hi this respect, was unquestioned throughout Europe. Some
over-zealous partizans who disliked his religion, would fam have depreciated
his claims to science. At length it was concluded that it was better to be silent
on this head also. Claudius (the Wansdeck Messenger) assured such that
they would probably have withheld their verdict, if they had known that
Swedenborg had gone tlirough more than all their learning in his youth.
Chevalier Sandel, while addressing the Swedish Academy of Sciences,
speaks of him as “ a vast and sublime genius who never knew either repose or
fatigue, who united to an ardent desire an encouraging hope of acquiring the
most profound attainments in Philosophy, in all branches of the Mathematics, in
Physics, . . in Anatomy, &c.anti that he was il celebrated for
his universal knowledge." “ He was,” says Count Hopken, “a true
philosopher . . gifted with the most happy genius and a fitness for every
science, which made him shine in all he pursued, . . and was probably the most
learned man that my country ever produced.” “ I will venture to affirm,” says Dr.
Messiter, the physician of George II., from personal knowledge and
converse, “ that there are no parts of mathematical, philosophical, or medical
knowledge, nay, I might justly say of human literature, to which he is in the
least a stranger.-’ Prof. Gorres, places his “ Principia” in
honorable competition by the side of Newton's. Berzelius, who has been
thought to know something of chemistry, adds his testimony. “I have
looked tlirough the Animal Kingdom, and am surprised at the great knowledge
displayed by Swedenborg on a subject that a profound metallurgist would not be
supposed to have made an object of study, and in which as in all he
undertook, he was in advance of his age." The silent influence of his
views has served to correct many a crudity in others, and the progress of
science has shown the elevated position from which he surveyed the whole field
of nature. Other critical authorities have joined in this encomium. But here
comes a most learned Pundit from Bangor, who would reverse all this hasty
eulogium : “ I am Sir Oracle, and you shall judge with my judgment, for I have
found more than half a score of instances in which he contradicts the
plainest and most universally acknowledged facts of science.” We will
remark on them briefly, as they successively come up.
(1.) According to the present English
translation, Swedenborg speaks in a certain connexion of the planet Saturn as
being “ the farthest distant from the Sun.” To this others have replied
that the original [longissime distat ab sole] may be lawfully rendered ' ‘ very
jar distant.” Or, if the present version
is retained, any one, who was not determined to find fault, would know that he
meant nothing more than that it was the farthest of those which were then
discovered, or of which he had been speaking.
(2.) As he has stated the cosmogony of
the system with tolerable correctness we accept the outline of this critic. “
Swedenborg’s theory of creation, or rather of cosmogony, was in brief this :
The sun of the spiritual world is an emanation from God, the heat and light of
which are the Divine love and the Divine wisdom. From the atmospheres of this
sun proceeded the sun of the natural world, which is a body of pure fire. From
the atmospheres of the natural sun, becoming more and more dense the farther
they proceeded from it, arose, in the distance, the earths of the solar system.
And so of all the other suns and systems in the universe. The earths,
therefore, are from the atmospheres of the natural sun—which is from the
atmospheres of the spiritual sun—which is from God. Hence, everything is
ultimately from God ; or, as Swedenborg expresses it, ‘ Jehovah created the
universe, and all things in it, not from nothing, but from himself.’ Swedenborg
taught that ‘ atmospheres, waters, and earths are the common or general
principles (elements) by which, and from which, all and everything exists,
with an infinite variety. Atmospheres,’ he said, ‘ are the active powers,
waters are intermediate powers, and earths are passive powers, from which all
things exist.’ ” To this theory— which by the way is the celebrated “ nebular
hypothesis” of La Place, borrowed from Swedenborg and disfigured so as to be
recognized 'with difficulty— he excepts on two grounds. (1.) That modem
chemistry has proved that air, water and earth are not elements, but
compounds. And here again it has been well responded that the term “ element”
was not here used in its present, scientific acceptation as “the last result
of analysis,” but simply as an ingredient or constituent of something else,
though itself might not be homogeneous. In a piece of richly striped cloth, for
example, each thread of warp or woof running through the whole tissue, might
be variously composed of flax, cotton, and silk, and still would be correctly
spoken of as an “ element” of the cloth. Swedenborg’s definition of “unity” is.
that “it is constituted of several various things so arranged as to be
in concord or harmony with each other; which concord arises from their
all having respect to one origin, that is, to one Lord who is the life
of all. . . There is no such thing as one absolutely or one simply but
one harmonically, consisting of many various things collected together into one
form and tending to one end or use and on that account called one”
(H. &H. 56; A. C. 457, 3241, &c.).
In accordance herewith Mackintosh
says, “ the whole creation teems with instances where the most powerful agents
and the most lasting bodies are the acknowledged results of the composition,
sometimes of a few, often of many elements. These compounds often in their turn
become the elements of other substances; and it is with them that we are
conversant chiefly in the pursuits of knowledge—solely in the concerns
of life. No man ever fancied that be cause they were compound they were
therefore less real. It is impossible to confound them with any of the
separate elements which contribute to their formation” (Hist, of Eth. Phil.
p. 256). And Coleridge, still more nearly, “ In nature there is no
other than negative unity such as the unity of space. Hence, the most composite
bodies are the noblest and most energetic.” Chemistry, which owes so much to
analysis and experiment, as distinguished from the observation of nature
in her spontaneous workings, he seems to think is a very good thing in its
place; but that “it may from the beginning have mistaken the products of
destruction (cadavera rerum) for the elements of composition; and that thus
far what it has gained in a few brilliant inventions, it may have lost on
the score of communion with the life and spirit of nature.” It is not to such
philosophers, who “murder to dissect,” “who delight to mint and remember names,
to arrange and classify, and pore and pull to pieces, and peep into
death to look for life, as monkeys put their hands behind a
looking-glass," that we are to look for a comprehensive theory of the
Universe. How do chemists know that what they call elements, are really simple
substances ? And is all speculation to be suspended until their analysis is
certainly complete ? To the true philosopher who uses the man of science as his
drudge, the faculty of synthesis is still more important. He may prefer,
with the ancients, “ to catch nature in the fact" of yielding her
products ready compounded, to putting her to the torture after the modem
fashion : and such an one will probably continue to believe that “ the four
primary forms of matter, fire, air, water, earth, corresponding to the four
primary powers, no one of which can be resolved into the other, and the number
of which can neither be increased or diminished, will survive the caprices of
empirical theory.” The new nomenclature of the chemists has merely re-baptized
many things which were well known before. The composite nature of air, water,
and earth has been recognized by Swedenborg elsewhere in his philosophical
works, though he had no occasion to mention it here.
(3.) But he thinks the theory cannot
be true because it implies that the earth’s atmosphere reaches to the sun,
whereas it is commonly thought to extend not more than forty or fifty miles.
The objector is again unfortunate. Swedenborg never supposed that the ah we
breathe reached to the sun, but that the interplanetary spaces were filled with
an etherial medium, which by condensation and other changes became the
common air near the earths I and recent observations support his views here
also. I The opinion that an etherial medium pervades the regions of space, of
sufficient density to affect the motion of comets, though so rare as to offer
no sensible resistance to the denser masses of the planets, whose periods of
revolution have continued exactly the same since the epoch of the first
astronomical observation, seems to be gaining ground. Its existence indeed
seems alone competent to explain the observed acceleration of Encke’s Comet in
its orbit” (Am. Enc. XIV. Art. Comets). This being conceded, there can
be no farther objection to the idea that | the atmospheres receive, attemper,
and convey the light and heat from the sun to the earth.”
(4.) Matter in itself is quiescent and
dead. All causes are spiritual, though parallel therewith runs a
corresponding series of outward phenomena or effects ; and this has given rise
to the common opinion of material causation, which, being a fallacy of the
senses, is to be corrected by reason. Preservation is perpetual creation. Man
has not life in himself as an independent source. There is but one life in the
Universe, and that is the Lord's, from whom it proceeds and is received by man
as His continual gilt. Such are some of the fundamental principles of
Swedenborg's philosophy. This life comes as spiritual heat with
its attendant light, which are love and wisdom, from the spiritual sun,
within which the Divinity dwells, and though it flows equally to all, yet is it
modified both by the capacity or form, and the state of the
recipient subject. From his Word we learn that ' ‘ the
blood is the life of man” (Lev. xvii. 11,
14): by which we understand that it is not simply the representative of the
latter, but the medium which receives it directly from the primal source. The
divine love being thus the source of life, and also thus modified when lent
to man, is declared by our author to be, (1.) the source of vital heat;
(2.) to be the cause of the redness of the blood—redness in the sacred
language corresponding to love or heat. (3.) He further asserts that the blood
“purifies itself in the lungs from things undigested, and (4.) nourisheth
itself with things conducible, such as odors inhaled with the air; and
that those fragrant or offensive are selected according to the character of
individuals—from whence results a like variety in the quality of their blood.”
Now all these are grievous heresies in physiology according to this Reviewer.
He does not inform his readers which of the conflicting theories that
pretend to account for animal heat, is “ plainly and universally
acknowledged;” but says that iron is the cause of redness in the
blood. The presence of this ingredient was perhaps quite as well known
to Swedenborg as to himself. In the small volume of “ Opuscula” published from
his posthumous MSS. in 1846, there is a tract “ Concerning the Red Blood,” in
which he declares that “ the redness of the blood arises from the
interposition of salino-volatile particles in each globule.” The iron in
the blood is in the form of a salt, but of itself has no power of action, nor
could it be present unless attracted by a higher, that is, a spiritual power or
proper cause. (5.) That the blood purifies itself in the lungs has
recently been demonstrated by Liebig, who also has been thought to know a
little both of Chemistry and Physiology. Its vitality having
likewise been shown by late experiments, the necessity of nourishment follows:
and what so appropriate as that suggested by Swedenborg 1 from whence
the farther consequence there asserted is also inevitable.
(5.) Again : According to Swedenborg,
at the original creation and before the fall of man, there were on earth
neither ferocious nor unclean beasts, birds, reptiles or insects ; or vegetable
or mineral poisons. As yet Hell itself was not; but arose gradually with
that abuse of human liberty which we call sin ; and with it arose the former,
of which our author enumerates many, and among them “ venomous
serpents.” Such a statement, this critic affects to think, denies that all
things were created by God : is inconsistent with the narrative of Eve’s
temptation by a serpent: and with the fossil remains of animals discovered by
Geologists. The reader will bear in mind that “ to create” according to
Swedenborg, is not to make
something out of nothing; but that all creation was originally an emanation
of Divine Substance from the body of God, though successively changed in its
properties as it receded from its source : that the animals now upon earth
received their peculiar form by the Divine Influx passing through the spirits
of men; and that this influx being perverted by passing through evil
spirits gave rise to similar perverted forms on the earth, the form in
every case being expressive of the internal quality. Now though the substance
of all things originated with God, and in that sense they were created
by him indirectly, yet the perversion originated or arose with
(Swedenborg does not say was “ created” by) Hell. Mr. Pollok, who is a
great authority with evangelicals, says, “’Twas sin dug hell.’'* And in
truth, it would be difficult to conceive the use of such an
establishment before, unless, as Calvin taught, our Maker having foreordained
the greater part of his creatures to damnation, provided a place in
anticipation, with all the appliances for having them duly roasted. According
to Moses, the things which God created directly and “ in the beginning” were
all “ very goodand supposing the temptation of Eve was not allegorically
expressed, are there none other than venomous serpents on earth ? But
what has Dr. Pond, an evangelical, to do -with Geology ? And how long is
it since the gentlemen of his catalogue denounced it as an atheistical
science ? But he has answered his own question. The fossil remains spoken of,
belonged to animals which were extinct before the creation of man. As
restored by comparative anatomists, they were sufficiently awkward, ungainly
looking creatures. Some ate vegetables, other slime or fish.
But Geologists and -writers on Natural Theology think the last a merciful
provision, to keep down superfluous numbers and prevent a more painful death
from starvation. The lion, though a camiverous animal, is mentioned by
Swedenborg as among clean beasts. There is no proof that any of the former
corresponded in nature with those given in his latter catalogue. And then as to
the time of their origination, can the Lecturer tell us, on his theory,
whence came the animals on'this continent, or in the isles of the Ocean ? How
did they get there from the Ark 1
(6). If such a Revelation as
Swedenborg professes to have delivered in good faith, were really vouchsafed,
we might reasonably anticipate that among its disclosures would be certain
things of which wc were wholly ignorant before, or at variance with our
previous opinions on the same subjects, and others of which we have no special
account in the Scriptures, although neither impossible in themselves nor
conflicting with the true sense of the letter. Of this kind is his statement “
that men, before the fall, had no external respiration, and no sonorous,
articulate language, such as took place afterwards; but communicated their
ideas one to another, by numberless changes of the countenance, by the varied
motions of the lips, and by the lively expressions of the eye. But at the time
of the fall, ‘ external respiration commenced, and together with it external
language.’” But this like everything else which traverses his cherished
opinions, is incredible with this critic. “ Men,” says he, “• at that period
had organs of respiration, else they were not men ; and who believes that these
organs were never exercised 1 Who believes that whole generations of men lived
on the face of the earth, without ever breathing the breath of life, or having
any oral communication one -with another ?” Certainly not Swedenborg. He
believed they were exercised, but in a different way. Man’s internal
organs being the work of infinite wisdom, are designed
Course of Time, B. I. to subserve a
variety of purposes, some of which may be suspended and others called into a
novel species of action. And herewith agrees a sentiment of Archbishop Magee—“The
uses arising from the connexions of God’s acts may be various ; and such
are the pregnancies of his works that a single act may answer a
prodigious variety of purposes. Of these several purposes we are for the
most part ignorant: and from this ignorance are derived most of our objections
against the ways of his Providence ; whilst we foolishly presume that like
human agents, he has but one end in view” (Sermon on Atonement, 21).
The same important truth was also perceived by Pope.
“ In human works, though labored on
with pain, A thousand movements scarce one purpose gain; In God's, one
single does its end produce, Yet serves to second too, some other use.”
The object of respiration is to support
life, and surely this were as well effected by “ internal
respiration” such as Swedenborg speaks of, and which in deed would indicate a more
direct communication with the source of life. For the rest, we know that
there is a language of signs and expressions of the face, capable of prodigious
compass and variety in those who have made it a special study. If beasts have
no other mode of communication, why should we suppose it less significant with
man, when guided by reason and sentiment 1 A distinguished statesman is
reported to have said “ that the use of •words was to conceal
thought.” Before men had acquired this diabolic art, or ever they had learned
to dissemble, such an universal because natural language would suffice
for the conveyance of all their thoughts and feelings.
(7.) Perhaps there is no department of
human knowledge, of which the general theory is so unsettled as is that of
medicine. The number of hypotheses which have chased each other across the
field of its history is so great, as to have occasioned its being called in
derision the “ conjectural science.” Nevertheless it is from this province, and
on such a subject as the nature of disease that this critic selects
instances of opposition to “ plain and universally acknowledged principles of
science !” While on the subject of the blood, we had occasion to state that “
matter in itself is passive; and cannot exhibit either life or motion unless
actuated by spirit. The natural world is indeed the basis of the
spiritual, but the latter is the world of causes; the changes in the former having
been preceded by corresponding changes in the latter.” This is as true of man’s
body, the microcosm, as of the greater world. The presence of particular
species of matter in the body may be the occasion of its partial injury,
derangement, or disorganization—and the presence of other species of matter, in
the form of remedies, may be the occasion of its restoration. The divine
influx, which is the source of man’s life, though from itself, may be modified
by the state either of the body, or of the spirit. In full accordance herewith
Swedenborg declares that diseases are of spiritual origin and may be either
produced or prolonged “by the influence of evil spirits.” And herein he appears
to have the countenance of Scripture (Matt. ix. 35 ; John v. 9, 14; Matt. * x.
1; Luke xiii. 15) and the opinions of the early Christians as cited in the
preliminary letter of our friend. “That man is subject to death by
reason of evils, or on account of sin, is known in the church; thus also
he is subject to diseases, for these are of death” (A. C. 5712). And the
progressive tendency of the science, both in its theory and in the choice of
its remedial agents is to confirm his view. Homaopatliists are not the
only physicians who believe that disease is of dynamic or spiritual
origin. The influence of the mind upon the body—of grief, sorrow, fear, anger,
anxiety, nay of excessive joy in inducing disease, aud of cheerfulness, faith,
aud hope in effecting its removal, are matters of familiar observation. Are
not these spiritual causes ? If there be any one at present who would assert
that there are no other thau material remedies we leave him to contend
with Miss Martineau and others who feel that they carry in their persons
proof to the contrary. Swedenborg’s philosophy does not deny the virtue of any
system of remedies which proves successful in practice. It includes all such;
for according to him—although disease is of spiritual origin—“ this is no
hindrance to man’s being healed naturally, for the divine providence concurs
with such means" (A. C. 5113). And this may be true while the patient
is wholly ignorant as well of the origin of his malady as of the remedy's mode
of operation.
(8). Swedenborg has given an account
of the origin of Idolatry, substantially the same with that given by
numerous other authors, which this critic abridges and objects to, as
follows : “ The most ancient people, those which existed before the flood and
immediately after it, possessed the science of correspondences; or, in other
words, they knew that every outward object in nature represeuted some inward
thought or affection; and also what thoughts and affections external
objects did represent. Possessing this knowledge and greatly prizing it, they
filled their houses and temples with the pictures and images of such things as
represented moral and religious truths. This they did with no bad intent, but
rather for their own instruction, and improvement. But in process of time,
their descendants, not retaining the science of correspondences, and not
knowing the import of the pictures and images, began to worship them as gods.
Hence the origin of the ancient idolatry.”
“ If this be a true statement, it
follows that the ancient idolatry must all have been of the same kind. At
least, the same objects of worship must have been found in all places.”
Admirable Logician 1 And if all men had the same tastes, or the same ruling
passions, and if there were no varieties in national or individual
character, or circumstances, there might be something in this objection. But
until all past history is reversed, it need detain us no longer.
(9.) Again, on the subject of Hieroglyphics,
“ Swedenborg says, that the Egyptians retained the knowledge of
correspondences longer than any other people; and that the whole system of
hieroglyphic al writing is founded upon it. According to him, the
hieroglyphics are all of them of a symbolical character, each representing some
doctrine or affection, some intellectual, moral, or spiritual truth. But
unfortunately for the system, the hieroglyphics have since been deciphered. The
hand-writing on the monuments aud tombs of the ancient Egyptians has been
read. The investigation reaches back to very ancient times—to a period earlier
than that of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. And what is the result?
Champoilion assures us, that by far the greater portion of the Egyptian
hieroglyphics are simply alphabetical characters. There is no more
enigma or mystery about them than about our own A, B, C.
Of the remainder, a part are mere pictures;
the picture of a man standing for a man, and that of a lion for a lion, &c.
A small portion of the hieroglyphics are used as symbols; and seem to have come
into such use in the same manner as tropes and metaphors with us.”* A small
portion of the hieroglyphics used as symbols ! And is this all, Dr. ? Mr. Gliddon,
the highest American authority, teaches otherwise : that while the last few
years have added much to our knowledge, the solution of hieroglyphical
mysteries is still far from complete', that there is much yet to
be learned; that there is reason to believe that there is both a
literal and an allegorical purport in them; and that it is this
last department which remains to be more fully explored. He often quotes a work
of Count Portal (a Swedenborgian, en passant), who uses the
discoveries of Champoilion to prove the symbolic nature of the characters and
figures. In the Hieroglyphical Alphabet many figures are employed to
denote a single letter. The selection of these in practical
writing, is believed to have been guided by the intended symbolical
meaning. The knowledge of correspondences, according to Swedenborg,
though surviving longer in Egypt, gradually faded there as elsewhere. But the
public use of these characters continued for many centuries after, down through
the dynasty of the Ptolemies, and under some of the Roman Emperors. If these
later inscriptions yield no allegorical sense in addition to the literal, the
theory of Swedenborg will not thereby be disproved.
In this connexion the critic is
pleased to be facetious, a privilege in which he rarely indulges himself, and
wisely, for his movements in this kind are neither of the lightest nor most
graceful. He intimates that the “Book of Jasher” may possibly be inscribed on
some of the tombs or monuments of Egypt, and suggests that “ Prof. Bush or some
one else go search for it.” Why not Dr. Pond himself? He has already
played the critic in Chemistry, Geology, Natural History, Physiology,
Cosmogony, aud Astronomy, and here decides oracularly about Hieroglyphics also.
Besides, the members of the Egyptian Society would doubtless pass a vote of
thanks, if he would help them out of a few of their difficulties, and perhaps
present him with a cast of the Rosetta Stone for the amusement of his leisure
hours, after he has finished the demolition of Swedenborgianism.
Besides these contradictions to natural
science (and the candid reader can now see how flagrant they
are), our lynx-eyed critic thinks he has detected a few in the department of
metaphysics. Let us see whether he is more formidable here than before. (1.)
According to Swedenborg, the constituents of the human mind are the Will
and the Understanding, the former the seat of the affections, the latter
of the thoughts, and there are three degrees in each, which are
successively opened during man’s progress in regeneration. The Reviewer thinks
this classification is both defective and confused. He has not condescended to
tell ns which of its faculties is not included in the one or the other.
The various states of the mind are a different subject of consideration,
and that Swedenborg “ merges the sentient in the voluntary"
will be something new to his followers. They understand the Free-will to be the
Self-determining power
' See Greppo’s Essay, pp. 34-46. which gives any
of its faculties as moved by any of its feelings its desired direction;
the general rudder which moves the whole mind or its parts.
(2.) Another doctrine of his is that “conscience
is an acquired state or habit of mind, the result of education, and is
peculiar to the present life.” And so taught Sir James Mackintosh (as
regards the first part of the statement), after a full review of all the
best writers on Ethics. He has given his reasons for his faith. Will Dr.
Pond refute them ?
(3.) Swedenborg declares that “man has
two memories, an exterior and interior,” and has given many facts of
consciousness in confirmation (A. C. 24692694), which, to one who is in the
habit of reflecting on his own mind, and its operations will suggest others of
a like kind. Our Reviewer “regards this as a wholly gratuitous assumption (he
has not told us why), and that “ it may as reasonably be affirmed that man has ten
memories as that he has two." To which we reply, that man has not ten
memories because he has two and no more.
The last of this series of charges
under the general head of Contradictions, is that Swedenborg is inconsistent
with himself. During some years in which our attention was specially
directed to this point among others, we discovered nothing of the sort
ourselves. Jurists, the course of whose habitual studies leads to a familiarity
with the laws of evidence, have read these writings and been struck with the
air of truth which pervades them. The previous character and attainments and
subsequent conduct of the writer, were a sufficient warrant for their
examination. The dignified simplicity with which lie announces his
pretensions—in one sense certainly as great and important as ever were claimed
by man—his continual respect for the freedom of his reader, so different from
the assumption of a charlatan, conciliated farther attention. A system of doctrine
well-digested and complete: definitions precise and closely adhered to: narrative
and description rapid and picturesque, yet by their admirable selection
of particulars, free from ambiguity: dialogue which gradually unfolds
the important subject under discussion, but pointed, laconic and free from all
useless digression: principles clearly laid down, and inferences fairly drawn
out: argument used, not for the discovery of truth by observing the
residuum after a balance of probabilities, but for its elucidation to the uninitiated,
as if by one who dwelt perennially in its present sphere; these and such like
considerations have produced their natural and proper impressions on the minds
of such readers when nnpreoccupied. Here is no doubt or hesitation of manner,
nothing stated as probable or conjectural—nothing of the dark double-meaning of
the ancient oracle—none of the artificial plausibilities which are thrown over
the cunningly devised fable—none of the subterfuges by which the artful and
insincere are used to escape when closely questioned—but all set forth in lucid
order and perspicuous style, the straightforward report of one who “ speaks
that which he knows and testifies of that which he has seen.” There are persons
now living, and not at all deficient in memory or sagacity, who have been
diligent students of these writings for more than forty years, and have never
yet detected a real contradiction in them. Many indeed were reported to them by
superficial readers, and appeared such at first view to themselves, but close
examination uniformly reconciled the apparent discrepancy.
Swedenborg having laid down a
principle, or made a statement with its proper qualifications and exceptions,
like most other writers, on the recurrence of the same topic, leaves something
to the good sense and candor of his readers. He does not encumber his page
with repetition and circumlocution, in the vain hope of guarding against the
misconceptions of all possible blockheads, or the perversions of the captious,
who would wrest his meaning, however plainly expressed; but, dealing fairly
with his reader, he takes it for granted that the reader who desires
instruction will deal fairly with him. If the sense is not clear from the
passage itself, or is not limited by the context or nature of the subject, it
may generally be elicited, when compared with expositions previously given, or
by adducing principles whose connection and bearing are not at first apparent.
If, nevertheless, this man whom all
history attests to have been “ moral, religious and sincere,” has after all
been only practising an elaborate fraud, he ought surely in his voluminous
works to have sometimes lost his circumspection, and afforded ample
opportunity of being detected by cross examination. Knowing these things, we
desired to see whether any gross blunders which had escaped the scrutiny of such
life-long observers could be stumbled over by a critic who digests three
octavos in a week. But to the Contradictions.
(1.) Swedenborg taught that man was
created innocent though gifted with free-will; and both natural
and ignorant, though capable of being regenerated into a spiritual
and celestial man. That this process, which is adambrated in the first
chapter of Genesis, was continued for several ages or generations, during which
the race generally was being elevated to this condition. Reason, under the
guidance of humility, would have kept before man the truth that he did not make
himself, and that he was constantly dependent on a higher source for his life
and all its powers and enjoyments. But, as he did not perceive the
divine influx, imparting and sustaining his life, but, on the contrary, seemed
to act as of himself, it was possible for him, if he chose to walk only
after the sight of his own eyes, and to be deaf to that voice which would
have corrected the error, to be led into the fallacy that his life was
either self-derived, or resigned to him to be used at his discretion!
Such, he tells us, was the origin of evil—partial at first but deepening
with successive generations. At first there were no other intelligent
beings interposed between man and his Maker, but his free-will consisted in
this power of heeding the dictates either of Sense or Reason. Having fallen, he
could only be restored to his position by voluntarily retracing his steps; but
instead of this, he continued to decline, until at length his lapse from
integrity became so entire that in order to effect his restoration, it was
necessary that his relation to divinity should be altered. We
have already seen that his mode of
receiving life from its source was changed, as also Iris method of intercourse
with his fellow-creatures. His regeneration being now to commence from without
and proceed inwards, his free-will thenceforth consisted in his being placed in
equilibria between the influences of good and evil spirits, by whom he was
ordered or permitted to be attended. Such Swedenborg declares to have been the
arrangement of Divine Wisdom, though man himself might be unconscious of their
presence. But that he elsewhere teaches that all angels and demons are of
the human race, the Reviewer urges this as one of his pretended
contradictions. “ If thought, affection, and the very life of man depend on his
communication with spirits, how was it,” he asks, “ when as yet there were no
evil spirits ? Does all freedom consist in this equilibrium ? Are God and
angels and the lost spirits in the sameI” And on such questions he rings the
changes through five successive pages. Now Swedenborg is very explicit on tire
difference between the state of man by creation and his condition at present.
And if the critic, as in duty bound,, had informed himself correctly on this
head, he might have spared himself the task of combating a man of straw.
Without resorting to spirits, the natives of other worlds (which we are not
forbidden to do by the supposition), long before the arrangement of which
Swedenborg speaks, there were in the other life, evil Spirits from this earth,
in sufficiency to produce such an equilibrium. Neither the Deity, nor angels,
nor demons, are in this equilibrium. Every intelligent being acts freely, but
acts according to his nature or character. Temptation cannot enter heaven. Good
motives have no permanent effect upon the lost. Man is in this
equilibrium, because this is his state of probation; in which his character
is yet to be formed. As fast and as far as it is formed for good,
temptation in that kind ceases. But though it is in no case irresistible, the
farther the individual advances in the regenerate life, the temptation becomes
of a more subtle and spiritual character; and thus, is a balance constantly preserved,
though the weights in the different scales may be as constantly increased or
diminished. He who is entirely regenerate—and of such, we learn, there are at
the present day but few—ceases to be molested with temptation, and enjoys “ a
Sabbath of rest.” On the other hand, free-will being a continual gift,
is also continually liable to abuse ; and still good spirits may be in tire
continual endeavor to restrain men from falling as low as they would sink if
left to themselves.*
‘
The Reviewer says in a note “Swedenborg taught, also, that just previous to the
end of the first Christian Church, and to the last judgment, which took place
in the year 1757, the wicked spirits had so multiplied in the other world, that
the equilibrium on-earth began to be destroyed (Last Judgment, Sec. 33).
But did men at that day begin to lose their free agency ? Do we tear any
complaints of this nature from writers of that period ?” Do we hear of anything
else from the really pious of that day ? Has Dr. P. never heard of “ the
force of example,” of “ the influence of fashion,” and of “ custom,” in
neutralizing the best precepts ? If so, we ask him farther, whether he has read
the Preface to “ Butler’s Analogy,” or the whole controversy with the Deists
and Infidels of the last century ? Or, Swift’s “ Project for the Advancement of
Christianity,” or, “ Warburton’s Letters to Hurd,” “ Hartley on Man,” or the
fictitious work entitled “ Chrysal,” or numerous other works which take up the
same burden? What raised up Wesley and Whitefield, but the deplorable state of
morals and religion, which was also the theme of every Bishop’s charge, as also
of every moralist and philanthropist ? But why speak further of what ought to
be notorious to all ?
We have not learned from Swedenborg
that “ man is the passive recipient of such influx,” or that because
“man’s reception thereof is according to his state,” therefore “ if the man is
good the influx produces good,” and vice versa. This may be good
Calvinistic, but not Swedenborgian doctrine. Oue of previously good
disposition inherited from his ancestors, can more easily become good
himself, but may pervert the influx if he will. No violence is done to
the will in either case. The most unfavorable disposition is not compelled to
sin; the most favorable—not forced to be holy. The influence, so long as man is
free, may be yielded to in order, or suffocated, or perverted. The water
which turns the great wheel of some New England factory, is the continual
gift of Divine Providence. The direction given to that power, the kind of
machinery which it is employed to move, the subject on which it is brought to
bear, its operation, whether begun, continued or suspended, are within the
option of the proprietor. So the power to act at all is the continual
gift of Providence to man, but the direction given to that power is within his
choice, and this freedom of choice is a reality. And, furthermore, so
long as it is continued, to say that, within the limits allowed him, man cannot
be prevented from aeting as he lists without destroying his freedom, is a
self-evident proposition! But from which of his works did Dr. Pond learn that “
Swedenborg insists that man is deceived, and must, and ought
to be ?” The passage he refers to forthat purpose (D. P. 210) teaches no
such doctrine. According to our author, there is but one entirely independent
Being in the Universe. Man has different faculties imparted to him, whose
functions are also diverse. He appears to himself to act independently,
and such appearance is necessary to his freedom. His senses are often
fallacious, but their false reports may be corrected by reason. If,
nevertheless, blinded by “ self-love,” man listens to the suggestions of the
lower faculty, and is thereby led astray, the preventative being still in his
own power, he may be “ deceived,” but it is by himself.
(2.) Though Swedenborg regarded the
Divine Love and Wisdom as being the very essence and form, and not as mere
attributes of the Deity, yet he often speaks of them as proceeding from
the Lord. And such method of speaking is said to be iu accordance with tire
latter, idea, and at variance with the former. But where is the inconsistency I
The sun is an ocean of fire, from whieh heat and light “ proceed,” in the form
of rays. The water of a stream proceeds from a fountain ; and in both eases
that whieh proceeds, partakes of the nature of its source. In like manner, the
Holy Spirit, which is the Divine Love and Wisdom, proceeding from the
unexhausted fountain of Deity, partakes of his substance.
(3.) The Trinity, according to
Swedenborg, did not exist until after the Incarnation of Christ, which appears
to conflict with his assertion, that the angels who appeared to Abraham as he
sat in his tent, “ was the Lord in his Divine Trinity as represented by the
three angels.” But here, again, die difficulty is in the critic’s own
imagination. There always was a Trinity—a Divine Essence, Form, and
Divine Proceeding; but the Trinity since the Incarnation is different.
The Essence is the same; the Form, is the Divine Humanity; the
Holy Spirit is a new divine influence—as witness, John vii. 39, comp.’
xx. 22.
(4.) The necessity for man’s regeneration
at the present day arises from his fall. But Swedenborg declares that
his regeneration is also set forth in the first chapter of Genesis, and before
his apostacy. And this is contradiction, the fourth; and another evidence of
how deeply the critic has pondered the works he undertakes to refute. Man was created
in the innocence of ignorance ; he was afterwards created anew in
the innocence of wisdom.
(5.) Swedenborg at one time says that 11
infants are innocent; at another “that though they have no actual
evil," or sin, “yet they are equally in evil with adults.” Aud
this, the Reviewer thinks, “looks like a contradiction.” We can assure
him, it is only in appearance, and that because he had confounded things
essentially different. Our author makes a “ distinction,” unrecognised by
Calvinists, between evil and sin. “ Innocence is that which does
no hurt to others.” Infants may have latent tendencies to sin, inherited
from parents, afterwards to be developed, and rejected or appropriated
according to the use or abuse of freedom, at a responsible age; but while
infants, these propensities may be kept in continual check by the divine
influence.
(6.) The Reviewer having laid down
from Swedenborg, the general proposition “ that love to the Lord, and towards
the neighbor, rule in the heavens, and make the heavensfollows it up with
numerous quotations, gathered from different and distant parts of his works,
expressive of the happiness attending the marriage relation, or what he calls
“ conjugial love,” and which, he declares, as has been already stated, is
continued in the other life. Not to anticipate here what will more properly
come up hereafter, it may be enough to say at present, that this principle or
affection which was ordained by Providence, and bears so important a part is
its economy as relates to man, is not in opposition to, but the highest exemplification
of the love of the neighbor. If the inhabitants of heaven are from the
human race, and thus traceable to the marriage relation, should the happiness
attendant in the discharge of its duties, and which reconciles to its cares, be
ever made the subject of ribald jest or gross insinuation I and by a Protestant
divine! We have no desire to misrepresent our opponent, but we should infer
from this and many other parts of his book, that his ideas of marriage are
essentially those which were taught in the Church of Rome during the Middle
Ages. True Protestants, however, will continue to believe with Swedenborg, that
this affection which was implanted by God—sanctioned and blessed by Him—is
“holy, pure, and clean.” If such is its nature here when genuine, is it
altered by being transferred to, and still farther purified in, a higher
sphere 1
(7.) In this connection we meet with
another most flagrant contradiction ! Swedenborg says that “in heaven, ‘two
conjugial partners are not called husband and wife, but the conjugial
partners of each other, from an angelic idea of the conjunction of two
minds into one.’ Yet in the course of his writings, we hear them called husband
aud wife, and that too by the angels themselves, probably a hundred times.” By
which most readers would understand that they were not so called, among
themselves, and in heaven, but the terms are used by Swedenborg, and
ascribed to some of his interlocutors, in accommodation to the habitual
language of men on earth, or of spirits who have not yet reached the higher abodes.
(8.) Swedenborg speaks of certain
dogmas of the Reformed Churches, as being of licentious and dangerous tendency;
also, of their unhappy effect on the church and the world, as manifested by
their operation on a large scale, and for ages, and declares that the
corruption thus induced had made them the subjects of special prophecy. But he
also declares, it was provided of the Lord that these principles should be
accompanied by precepts which, with the well-disposed, might counteract their
evil influence. And this, again, is charged as a notable inconsistency! But it
is the Confessions of the Reformed Churches, which are contradictory. They all
insist on “justification by faith alone,” and yet require obedience to the law,
as “ a rule of life,” although they declare such obedience impracticable ! As
these positions cannot be reconciled—by a happy instinct, the conscientious
endeavor to lead a good life, while the hypocrite or the negligent secretly
drugs his conscience with the Antinomian opiate. The study of the Bible with
the sincerely pious, moreover neutralizes the tendency of their Creeds, of
whieh, fortunately, most of them know but little. It is likewise true that the
Divine Providence has never permitted any system of faith which was utterly
unredeemed, extensively to prevail. But for this “taking back;” this
after-thought, of “good works being the fruit of faith,” on the part of the
Reformed, the bonds of religion and morality, after the first enthusiasm was
spent, would have been entirely loosed, and society would have been
dissolved, unless, by an union of the virtuous of all parties, such dangerous
principles had been suppressed with their authors.
(9.) When Swedenborg lays down the
general proposition that place is not properly predicable of the
Spiritual World, which is rather a state of being—by that term, in this
connection, he means fixed place, like the localities of this world. He
uniformly teaches that places in that world are appearances which vary with
the states of the inhabitants, but that they are real to them, while they last.
There, as here, place exists within space, in general; and in this
sense it is that he speaks of the spiritual world being divided into “
different regions,” and of the “ great extent of heaven.” Within still narrower
limits, we may suppose, that certain of these appearances became so far
permanent from the constant presence of those in like state, as to have
the resemblance of Earth, or a foundation for other and shifting scenes.
And it is in this aspect that the “ world of spirits” is called a middle “
place” between heaven and hell—that its different “quarters” are spoken of,
&c. Sometimes he uses the term “place” in reference to that world, for want
of one which will more exactly express his meaning, or in accordance with the
popular impression. When thus qualified, all the apparent discrepancy in
Swedenborg’s language on this subject is at once removed.
(10.) It is not taught by our
author on any occasion “ that there is no deception or hypocrisy
in the next world.” Far otherwise, he repeatedly says, that the aspect of men
on their first entrance into the intermediate region—and it may be for a long
time afterwards—is much the same with that which they exhibited while here. But
that they are all ultimately reduced to a condition in which the real
character is developed, when the outward appearance shall conform to the inward
state. Until then, they may practise their frauds to a
certain extent even on the innocent.
When consigned to their permanent abodes, the deceitful retain the disposition
to deceive, and may circumvent each other, but they can no longer impose even
on the “ simply good.”
(11.) The next pretended instance has
been already answered hi explanation of the statement that “ the Lord casts no
one down to hell.” He may permit this to be done in order to separate the evil
from those whom they would otherwise molest or injure—or the spirit may cast
himself down to escape the intolerable brightness to which his own nature is
entirely opposed.
(12.) The Reviewer thinks it an “
extraordinary statement,” that “ sinners in hell are only punished, as it
becomes necessary, to prevent their molesting or tormenting each other.” And
will nothing less than eternal burning, un- consnmed, in material fire, satisfy
the tender mercies of an Evangelical Professor of Theology ? We camiot believe
it. Time was when such an idea reigned without dispute. The natural reaction
against the monstrous thought at length begot the opposite error of the
Unversalists. But in the various oscillations of opinion, wc are now happy to
learn, that the ancient and terrible dogma has come to us greatly modified and
softened in the teachings of the sternest sects. And the Reviewer has again
failed in his efforts to fasten on Swedenborg, a contradiction of his first
position. The cases cited which speak of “bruising in a mortar,” “ grinding in
a mill,” &c. are expressly said to be the insane fantasies, induced
by the malignant states of cruelty into which the demons had brought
themselves, hi conformity with the general law of the spiritual world,
according to which the internal states of all are indicated by surrounding appearances
which vary with those states.
(13.) Finally, we do believe, “that
there are no radical changes either with the good or evil after death.” Nor is
there anything in all the theological works of our author opposed to this
statement. The passage which is brought forward by this critic, as teaching a
different doctrine, has been most unnecessarily misunderstood by some of his
own followers. “ It would be unreasonable,” says he, “to suppose that the Lord
would permit any one to be punished in hell, much less to eternity,
for the sins of a short life.” The term “punished” is used here in the sense of
vindictive, arbitrary infliction, which Swedenborg uniformly denies. His
doctrine is that sin punishes itself: that suffering (as
distinguished from punishment) is the inevitable consequence of sin, to which
also the wicked are eternally liable,
because the character is fixed. Its intensity is, however, mitigated as far as
possible by restraining the outbreaks of their infernal passions. In this
sense, punishment is occasionally permitted as an act of mercy, as in the case
of the inmates of an hospital. And in accordance herewith he declares that all
the infernall are more or less insane.
The Reviewer having thus drawn out his
specimens, closes with the complacent annunciation that “ it is unnecessary to
pursue the inconsistencies of Swedenborg any farther.” In which for once we
concur with him, and for the best of reasons. The search would be fruitless if
conducted with candor, and a proper
knowledge of the system. He has not made good a solitary charge of contradiction
to Scripture; to history, sacred or profane ; to the facts of science, or to
himself. With such a result to crown the preliminary promise of the book, the
reader may be left to decide either on the weakness of th assailant, or the
strength of the system, or both.
DR. POND'S OBJECTION THAT SWEDENBORG LOWERS THE STANDARD OF
CHRISTIAN
PIETY CONSIDERED.
Or all the extraordinary charges that
ever v»erc brought against any system of religion, perhaps the most groundless
is that against the New Church of “ lowering the standard of Christian morality
or piety.”* The opposite tendency of this system has been strongly enforced by
Mr. Clissold in his Letter to Archbishop Whateley. If the reader will simply
recal the declarations already made, that New Churchmen believe the divine
rewards and punishments are not arbitrarily dispensed; that the condition of
man in the other life depends on the character formed by him here; and that
future happiness can only flow from virtuous or pious dispositions, whieh are
the result of an habitual observance of the moral and divine law; we leave him
to judge whether stronger motives to the regenerate life can be brought
to bear on the human mind; and thence to determine on the justice of the
imputation. Its repetition here by a Calvinist—who asserts that man cannot
obey the divine precepts : that Christians are justified by faith alone,
and that an habitual sinner may be saved in his dying hour, by professing his
repentance and belief in the vicarious atonement of Christ—might be somewhat
amusing, but for the atrocious aspect it assumes when he enters into details.
He first takes the broad ground that
Swedenborg’s system of piety dispenses with the appropriate work of the Holy
Spirit, by deputing it to the ministration of angels. If by this we are to
understand that New Churchmen do not acknowledge a third God or Person whose
exclusive function is such as he describes, we most freely own that we entirely
repudiate every sueh idea. But if, as appears to be his design, he would
impress on the reader that we deny all direct action of the Divinity on the
soul of man in the work of regeneration, he has but furnished another
evidence of the recklessness or carelessness which could hazard such an
assertion in the face of such declarations as these : “The new generation
or creation of man is effected by the Lord alone ; by charity and faith
as the two means, with the co-operation of man.” “ The human soul, forasmuch as
it is a superior spiritual substance, receives influx immediately from
God; but the human mind, forasmuch as it is an inferior spiritual substance,
receives influx from God mediately through the spiritual world; and the body,
forasmuch as it originates from the substances of nature, which are called
material, receives influx from God mediately from the natural world. The good
of love and the truth of wisdom flow in from God into the soul of man
conjointly, that is, united into one, but are divided by man in their
progress, and are conjoined only with those who suffer themselves to be led by
God.” “ The nature of influx is sueh that from the Lord’s divine (principle)
there is an influx into every angel, into every spirit, and into every man,
and thus the Lord rules every one, not only in the universal, but also
in things most singular, and this immediately from himself, and
likewise mediately through the spiritual world.” “Without immediate influx the
mediate is of no effect: immediate influx is received according to the order in
which a man or angel is. . . This influx is continual and adjoined to
all and singular things of the will of man, directing them to order as far
as possible : for man's own will is continually leading him astray” (T. C.R.
576 ; Inf. 8; A. C. 6058, 9683).
Again; if the Reviewer means that no
one can be regenerated (or sanctified, if he will,) without first going
through the frightful process whieh men of the same stamp call “ conviction,”
and whieh is induced by the most terrible denunciations of a sinner’s
offences, of the Almighty’s wrath, and of the horrors of future punishment; we
freely confess that such shocking pictures, conjured up to frighten people into
religion, are often fitted to produce effects the opposite of those intended,
and that reformations based on no better foundation, arc to be distrusted until
fortified by subsequent and more sober considerations.
But the Lecturer has himself furnished
the reply to his own charge in the Creed and Articles of Faith which he has
quoted at length* Let any unprejudiced man read the fifth section of the Creed
as connected with the third and fourth; let him also peruse the fourth, fifth,
seventh, and ninth Articles of Faith, and say whether it would be possible to
bring forward a more baseless imputation. According to these, “ evils are to be
shunned because they are of and from the devil: good works are to be done
because they are of and from God : and they ought to be done by man as of
himself, but with a belief, that they are from the Lord,
operating in him and by him." “ The Holy Spirit is the Divine
Proceeding whose influx created and sustains man and all things in life.” “ The
continued aim of the Lord, by his Divine Providence is to join man to
himself and himself to man, that he may give him the felicities of eternal
life.” “In order to enter heaven man must be regenerated or created anew; which
great work is effected in a progressive manner by the Lord alone, by
charity and faith as mediums, during man’s co-operation.” “ Charity, faith and
good works are unitedly necessary to man’s salvation; and nothing of either is
of man, but all is of the Lord and all the merit is his alone" We
leave such sentiments to plead their own cause.
And was Swedenborg neglectful of prayer
himself ? Or did he fail to impress the duty on his readers ? He was piously
educated, by a learned and pious dignitary, his father, and was so early and
thoughtfully pious himself that even in childhood his friends would often say
that “ surely the angels spoke through his mouth.” Among the rules of life
which he habitually observed, were these : “To read often and meditate
much on the word of God,” and “always to eep the conscience clear"
As this last could only be done by neglecting no duty, it only remains
to inquire whether he considered prayer a duty.
“ Piety from charity, external
sanctity from internal sanctity, and a renunci- tion of the world with a
life in the world, constitute the spiritual life.” “ Piety consists in
thinking and speaking piously, in spending much time in prayer, in
behaving humbly at that time, in frequenting temples and attending devoutly to
the preaching there. . . and in performing the other parts of worship
according to the ordinances of the church.” “ It is common in all divine
worship that man should first will, desire, and pray, and that the
Lord should then answer,
inform and do ; otherwise man does
not receive anything divine” . . “ But yet the Lord gives them to ask and
what to ask; therefore the Lord knows it beforehand ; but still the Lord
wills that man should ask first, to the end that he may do it as of
himself, and thus that it should be appropriated to him; otherwise, if the
petition itself were not from the Lord, it would not be said in those places
that they should receive whatsoever they asked.” “ Praying is the effect of the
spiritual life, or external thereof which availeth in proportion as it
proceedeth from that life, for they are one as soul and body, or external and
internal” (H. D. 123, 124; A. R. 376 ; Ap. Exp. 325). Such are the very words
of Swedenborg, rendered in our own language. He furthermore says that repentance
is the first thing of the Church with man, and necessary to regeneration,
and both together constitute the great duty and object of a Christian while on
earth; and neither of these can be attained without prayer (T. C. R. 530, 539).
This being clearly laid down, oft-repeated exhortations to prayer would have
been superfluous. One, however, who will take the pains of search will find the
duty frequently mentioned; and it is implied throughout his writings which bear
on the Christian life.
To aid in its discharge, several
Manuals of Devotion have been compiled, and are extensively used by the church
both in England and America, which contain an ample selection of prayers suited
for private and family use on the various occasions of life. For public
worship, there are other Liturgies besides the American “Book of Worship” which
contain a variety of forms expressive of the wants of a congregation, and by
which the hearts of New Churchmen can ascend in thanksgiving and praise to Him
whom alone they recognize as the Christian's God.
We must plead guilty to the charge
that the “ Lord’s Prayer” is often employed by us; and if the small
circumstance of its being the dictate of infinite wisdom, while teaching his
disciples “ how to pray,” be not a sufficient warrant, the following
passages may throw some light on the motives of Swedenborg and his followers hi
this—we should hope—rather venial offence. “ Whilst 1 was reading the Lord’s
Prayer morning and evening, . . the ideas of my thought were constantly open
towards heaven, and innumerable things flowed in. . . And what is
wonderful, the things which flowed in were every day varied. Hence it
was given me to know, that in the contents of that prayer there are more things
than the universal heaven is capable of comprehending; and that with man more
things are in it, by how much the more his thought is open towards heaven; and
on the other hand, that fewer things are in it, by how much the more the
thought is closed; for with those, who have the thought closed, nothing more
appears within than the sense of the letter, or that sense which is nearest the
expressions.” “ In that prayer all things follow in such a series that as it
were they constitute a column, increasing from the highest to the lowest, in
the interiors of which are the things which precede in the series.” “As often
as I said the prayer of our Lord, morning and evening, I was raised,
almost every time with variety, into an interior sphere, and indeed so
perceptibly, together with the change or variation, that nothing could be more
so; and this experience I have now had upwards of two years. Interior
explications of that prayer were then opened to my mind with very much variety.
But when the prayer was finished, I came again into my ordinary sphere [or
state] (A. C. 6619, 8864 ; S. D. 258).
As a preparative to prayer it is
proper to examine ourselves, but it is not necessary that we confess our sins
in detail to the Lord, for he knows them already ; much less need we charge
ourselves with crimes or delinquencies of which we are not conscious. The
object of prayer is to induce a state of mind receptive of the blessings which
a merciful God is ever ready to bestow on those who would be benefited by them.
“ God is in heaven and we are upon earth, therefore should our words be few.”
The terms in which our petitions are presented, if well considered for
ourselves, or adopted from others as expressive of our wants, and
acknowledgments, and affections, may be brief, and yet as compatible with sincerity,
and as well adapted to excite corresponding sentiments in the partners of our
devotion, as those of multitudes at this day who rush into the divine presence
with a profane or thoughtless familiarity which is as shocking to reverential
feeling as it is offensive to good taste. And the frequency and flagrancy of
this offence is the more surprising when we reflect that the warnings against
the indulgence of such ostentatious and vain repetitions stand out so
prominently on the sacred page (Ecc. v. 2 ; Matt. vi. 7, 8, 32; xxiii. 14; Luke
xviii. 13,14; xx. 47; 2 Tim. iii. 5). That prayer may be something more and
other than lengthened words is at times acknowledged by the orthodox
themselves, for often and with admiration have we heard from their pulpits the
words of Montgomery’s hymn, which are as just as they are beautiful, and as
forcible, as flowing :
“
Prayer is the soul’s sincere desire, unuttered or expressed, The motion
of a hidden fire that trembles in the breast. Prayer is the burden of a sigh—the
falling of a tear; T he upward glancing of an eye when none but God is
near.”
The hurried mental petition of the
pious soldier, who in the imminent deadly breach commends him to the protection
of his Maker, may be as earnest and as acceptable as the long and labored and
eloquent! or importunate, gregarious, heaven-storming supplications addressed
as if to reluctant ears, in the hope of wresting a blessing as if from
unwilling hands.
If Jesus Christ be the supreme and
only God, to whom else should our devotions be directed ? He was worshiped
while on earth (Matt. ii. 11; ix. 18; xi. 28; xiv. 33; xv. 25; xxviii. 9; Luke
xxiv. 52; John v. 40; vi. 37,45, 67, 68; vii. 37; ix. 38; x. 1, 27, 28), and
afterwards by the primitive Christians, (Acts vii. 59; ix. 14, 21; 1 Cor. i. 2;
2 Cor. xii. 8; Rom. xvi. 18; Phil. iv. 13; Col. iii. 24; 2 Thes. ii. 17), just
as the Apostles believed that they complied with the divine command in Matt,
xxviii. 19, 20, when they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ alone (Acts ii.
38; viii. 16; x. 48; xix. 5; Rom. vi. 3; 1 Cor.
i. 13; Gal. iii. 27).
The followers of Swedenborg may not in
all cases, or fully, carry out his recommendations on this subject; but in
proportion as they do, they find the benefit, and of some of them, we believe
it may be said, from the constant care with which they cherish a spirit of
charity and obedience to the divine commands, and from their habitual sense of
dependence on their Lord, that their whole lives are a continual prayer.
The Protestant leaders having taken up
their well-known position that justification is by faith alone, and that a
good life is not indispensable to salvation, and fortified the same with the
solemn declaration that man is not able to obey the divine commands, the
dullest of their followers could readily deduce inferences favorable to the
wishes of fallen human nature. Multitudes would not enter at all on such a
course, and others, despairing of success, would soon abandon all effort. Why
seek to advance in holiness, if they may be saved without 1 Why undertake that
which the ministers of God assure them is an impossible task ft To stimulate
the supine, Swedenborg everywhere urges the importance of obedience, and to
encourage them to exertion he shows by considerations addressed to common
sense and reason, and by others drawn from Scripture, that if they will make a
proper use of the faculties with which they are gifted, “ it is not so
difficult to live the life which leads to heaven as some suppose.”
Whereupon, with that ready instinct which marks the Reviewer's course
throughout the volume, he would have his readers interpret such decla- tion
into a lowering the standard of Christian character. And can it be that a just
and benevolent God would require of us that which we are unable to perform |
“I can do all things," said Paul, “through Christ strengthening
me.” “ Where the Spirit of the Son is, there is liberty.” “ His commandments
are not grievous," said John. “My yoke is easy and my burden
is light" said the Lord himself. “ The Truth shall make you free
•" and “ if the Son shall make you free you shall be free indeed.” The
wise man of old assures us that “ the way of transgressors is hard,” but
“ the ways of wisdom are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace."
“ The statutes of the Lord,” said David, “ rejoice the heart"
of his servants
But, as is well known, there are many
who, though acknowledging the duty of obedience, mistake the true nature of the
Christian life, and the error of such is reproved in the following passage,
which is thus quoted and wrested by the critic: “ Some people believe that a
spiritual life is difficult, since they have been told that a man must renounce
the world, and deprive himself of the concupiscences of the body and the
flesh; which things they conceive as implying that they must reject worldly
things, which consist chiefly in riches and honors; that they must walk
continually in pious meditation about God, salvation, and eternal life; and
that they must spend their days in prayer, and in reading the Word and other
pious books. This they call renouncing the world, and living in the spirit, and
not in the flesh. But that the case is altogether otherwise has been
given me to know, from much experience, and from conversation with the
angels. Indeed, they who renounce the world and live in the Spirit, in the
manner above described, procure to themselves a sorrowful life, which is not
receptible of heavenly joy; for every one’s life remains with him after
death. But that man may receive the life of heaven, it is altogether necessary
that he live in the world, and in office and employment there ; that in
such case, by moral and civil life, he may receive spiritual; because spiritual
life cannot otherwise be formed without him. ’ From this extract my readers
will see what kind of Christian life Swedenborg abjures, and what he
recommends. With him, a life of pious reading, meditation, and devotion, so far
from contributing to genuine spirituality, is inconsistent with it.” Now is
there one reader in ten thousand who, if tolerably informed on such subjects,
would not know that the reference here is to the hermits, monks, and nuns
of the Roman Church, or to such idle Protestants or persons in other
communions as make a semblance of devotion a substitute for duty ? Surely
the obtuseness which could so mistake, or the voluntary blindness which would
thus pervert the plain meaning of an author, must disqualify the subject of it
from passing a righteous judgment on any opinion opposed to his own. It
was Swedenborg's own habit, to read often and reflect much on the
Word of God, and the pursuit of truth and the amendment of life are urged on
his followers in every variety of form, and with every topic of
recommendation. As a specimen we offer the folio-wing from the volume which is
presently quoted by the Reveiwer: “ The externals of the
body which belong to worship are, going to church, hearing sermons, devoutly
singing and praying on the knees, and taking the sacrament of the supper. At
home also, morning and evening prayer, and prayer at meals, conversing
on charity and faith, on God, heaven, life eternal, and salvation; and iu the
case of priests, preaching also and private instruction. In the case of every
man, communicating free and sincere instruction on religious matters,
reading the Word and pious and instructive books. The externals of the mind
which belong to worship, are, thinking and meditating on God, heaven, eternal
life, and salvation, reflecting on the thoughts and intentions, as to whether
they are evil or good, and that the evil ones are from the devil, and the good
from God; rejecting all impious, obscene, and filthy conversation,” &c.
(Doc. Ch. 101,102.)
But if Renunciation in the
abstract is to be the principle and measure of Christian virtue, where shall be
the limit to its operation ? It will not be content with the repudiation of
things which, indifferent in themselves, are clogs to the pursuit of a greater
good. The temperance pledge will soon become a bagatelle: the vow of “
poverty, chastity, and obedience,” will not suffice. All pleasure must
be renounced, and suffering welcomed instead. Heroic spirits will again
vie with each other in the endurance of penance, in hope “ to merit heaven by
making earth a hell.” A hair shirt -will become more holy than a simple fast or
occasional scourge, the belt with iron prickles, holier still. And after all,
the hook-swingers and Fakirs and Yogees of Brahmin- ism will have
left at an immeasurable distance the most terrible austerities of La Trappe
or the Grand Chartreuse. Away then with these follies of the Dark Ages,
and let us betake ourselves to a system of rational piety, which inculcates
plain duties according to an intelligible standard.
A life in the world,
and devotion to some useful calling, is therefore insisted on. But, says
Swedenborg, “ in every calling there is an affection, and this affection
stretches the will and keeps the mind intent on its work or pursuit; and if the
mind is never unbent, it becomes dull, its desires are rendered foolish
whenever it has no excitement or stimulus, as a bow which is never unstrung,
loses its elasticity. Such is the case if the mind is long kept in similar and
unvaried ideas. When the mind is continually on the stretch of its work, it
desires repose, and during repose it descends into the body, and there seeks
for pleasures correspondent to its operations.” For this purpose he recommends
what he calls “Diversions of Charity,” many of which he enumerates, and whose
innocence and propriety would scarcely be questioned by any but a monk. But as
he has included such things as “ social festivals, and games, and dancing,”
among them, the Reviewer does not fail to seize on them as suited to his
general purpose. The sneer at “ festivals” smacks of the ancient Puritan
of New England, and, we are happy to believe, would have been better suited to
that meridian two centuries since than now. But existing prejudices make it
proper for us to say, that some of the recreations thus allowed by Swedenborg
are liable to be misunderstood. Certain games of chance there enumerated are so
associated in the minds of many pious persons with what is usually termed “ gambling,”
that they seem to consider this abuse as inseparable from their use. We must
therefore declare and with emphasis, that Swedenborg no where sanctions a
practice which is so justly reprehensible and injurious in its effects. Diversion
from the cares of business, and renovation of the spirits after labor or
fatigue, in the discharge of the duties of one's calling, are the necessary
condition and measure of their being permitted, and not for
unlawful gain. Having premised thus much we hasten to meet another prejudice
for which we have no respect, and ask, “ Is dancing a sin, according to
the Holy Scripture?” The daughters of Israel danced on occasion of the
passage of their people through the Red Sea—and on the return of their generals
victorious from battle. David danced before the Ark of the Lord. At the
dedication of his house, he says, “ Thou hast turned my mourning into dancing.”
Again, “ Let the children of Zion praise the name of their king hi the
dance.” “ Praise him with the timbrel and the dance.” “There is
a time to dance,” said Solomon. “ Oh virgin of Israel,” said the prophet, “
thou shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry. . . .
Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance both young men and old
together, for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them and
make them rejoice from their sorrow.”! It is sometimes attempted to obviate
the force of these plain texts by saying that these were religious dances. But
would Jehovah have promised, or enjoined, or permitted as a part of religion
that which was intrinsically wrong ? Or could that be very heinous which was
mentioned by our Lord as fitly contributing to the welcome of the returning
prodigal ?
We ask farther, have any body of
clergy a right to declare that to be unlawful which the Divine Word either
sanctions or leaves indifferent? And the Reviewer’s Confession of Faith may
again give the answer. “ Good works are only such as God hath commanded in
his Holy Word, and not such as without warrant thereof are devised by men
out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.” “ God alone
is Lord of conscience, and hath left it free from the . . . commandments of
men, which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it in
matters of faith or worship. So that . . to obey such commandments out of
conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience,” &c.| When,
therefore, any such restrictions are attempted to be imposed wc demand the
war-
rant: and if others pretend to
superior sanctity in consideration of their being self-imposed, we have only to
ask in the words of the Prophet, “ W7w hath required this thing at your
hand ?” Evangelical clergymen who wish to render religion attractive to
the young, often repeat the sentiment, “ it never was designed to make their
pleasures less.” But when once enlisted in their ranks, the “ will worship”
which the Apostle so emphatically denounces, is sure to be prescribed and
enforced, as if there were no other method of distinguishing a veritable
Christian from a man of the world. “ I do not think,” says Dr. Arnold, “ that
pleasure is a sin. The Stoics of old and the Ascetic Christians since, who have
said so, have therein overstepped the wisdom and simplicity of Christian
truth.” And singular it is that such a
truism should require to be re-iterated in the nineteenth century! We find it
difficult to believe that any one who can so far divest himself of the shackles
of system as to permit the Word of God to leave its natural impression on his
mind, should doubt that its general tendency is to produce a spirit of calm and
equable cheerfulness among all rational Christians ,f
Notwithstanding all this our Precisian
Professor was sadly scandalized at such profane indulgences, and “ wishing to
satisfy himself as to the practical workings of this kind of religion,”
despatched a set of queries for that purpose to various points where the New
Church is established. One of his respondents says in reply, | Our New Church
folks exhibit, perhaps, a fair proportion of general morality and amiableness
of deportment, and seem rather to pride themselves on these things (?) ; but of
a contrite, watchful, prayerful spirit; a spirit of self-denial, of deadness to
the world, of seriousness and holy devotion to things unseen and eternal, there
are few, if any, of what are considered as the natural indications.” There was
then “ a fair proportion of general morality and amiability of
deportment!" When such testimony is wrung from an unwilling witness,
we may fairly suppose the concession is merited. The rest is between them and
their God, or their confidential friends. The heart knoweth its own bitterness
and its own struggles. And long may it be ere they cease to merit the remainder
of the reproach. Ever may it be said of the members of this church that they
shun the example of the Pharisees of old, who walked abroad with lengthened
visage and sanctimonious air, in token of how very religious they were ! If New
Churchmen possessed and practised the Christian virtues of which he speaks, it
is not probable that they would proclaim it aloud or make an ostentatious
display of them in public. There are times and places when such feelings may be
exhibited without breach of propriety, and before persons to whom they are
generally known. There is also a regular method of ascertaining the truth in
such cases, and if his anonymous informer had made application to the proper
source in the proper spirit, he would not have been left to uncharitable conjecture.
But a bonne bouche in some
shape must be given to the querist, and accordingly he is told that
Swedenborgians sometimes had private dancing-parties, and occasionally
also in public, when others, particularly young persons, are invited, and, shocking
to relate! “ on the same evening and at the same hour, in which Evangelical
Christians are coming together for their stated prayer-meeting !” We
know not where this highhanded offence was committed; but we humbly presume,
that the offenders recollected that they were in a land of religious
freedom, and that so long as they did not disturb the devotions of
their Evangelical neighbors, they had a right to partake socially of innocent
recreation, at a season which suited their own convenience, without being
pursued by eavesdroppers, or hunted down by spies as if they were a set of
bacchanalians.— The charitable comment of the Reviewer is, that these meetings
are designed as traps to catch the young and unwary, and to decoy them into the
New Church. We can imagine his holy horror if we were to suggest that many an
Evangelical prayer meeting, and anxious bench had been got up for just such
a purpose. And who is this Professor of Theology, that he should set up his
factitious virtues as a standard for others to follow, and deal out his
anathemas on all who deny his authority, and spurn his insinuations as they
deserve 1 (“ But who art thou, that
judgest another man’s servant ? To his own master he standeth or
falleth.”) We appeal to an impartial public, and to the honorable men among the
Evangelical party themselves, many of whom we know, against this outrage on
decency; and desire to know emphatically of this writer and his abettors, if
it is in such style and with such weapons that this controversy is
hereafter to be conducted His still more abominable charges on the score of morality
we propose to notice in the sequel.
DR. PONDS’S CHARGE AGAINST SWEDENBORG’S PRINCIPLES OF
INTERPRETING THE SCRIP-
TURES AND HIS CONSTITUTION OF THE CANON REFUTED.
In responding to this Reviewer we have
not always chosen to follow him in his circuitous course, but have observed a
more natural order; in pursuing which, we come now to consider that objection
which relates to Swedenborg’s Canon of Scripture, and his mode of
interpreting the same. The general charge is, that “he rejects
nearly one half of the Bible,” while “ he adopts such principles of
interpretation as render the rest of comparatively little value. The obvious
sense of Scripture; that which strikes the eye and affects the heart of the
com. mon reader, is, in comparison, of small account, while the utmost
importance is attached to certain hidden, spiritual, mystical
senses, which so far at least as the uninitiated are concerned, seem almost
entirely arbitrary.”! It is a sufficient answer to the first part of this
latter charge, that its falsehood was known to the writer when he penned it. On
page 51 of his book, we find the following sentences. “ It was a maxim with Swedenborg,
and one oft re-
peated in his writings,
that the doctrine of the church
ought to be drawn from the literal
sense of the Word, and to be confirmed by it." Doctrine is
not derived from the spiritual sense, but only illustrated and
corroborated thereby. This is a very important canon of the New Church, and one
which ought never to be forgotten. Let this acknowledgment be placed vis-a-vis
with the imputation, and what becomes of the latter? Its injustice will be
still farther manifest from the following heads of paragraphs taken from the
treatise on the “ Sacred Scripture.” “The literal sense of the Word is
the Basis, the Continent, and the Firmament of its
spiritual and celestial senses.” “ Divine Truth, in the literal sense of the
Word, is in its Fulness, in its Sanctity, and in its Power."
“ The truths of the literal sense of the Word correspond to the precious
stones, of which the foundation of the New Jerusalem were built, as mentioned
in Rev. xxi. 17-21: to those in the Urim and Thummim of the Jewish High Priest:
to those also in the Garden of Eden, in which the king of Tyre is said to have
been (Ex. xxviii. 12, 13), likewise, to the curtains and veils of the
Tabernacle, and to the externals of the Temple of Jerusalem.” And by the
literal sense of the Word, man has conjunction with the Lord, and consociation
with the angels (S. S. 27, 37, 43-47, 62). The reader will have observed
moreover that in the preceding discussion of our doctrines, the appeal has ever
been to the literal sense alone. We can assure him that the same method
is observed in the other apologetic and defensive works of the Church, and by
Swedenborg himself in his doctrinal writings, and thus far it has proved amply
sufficient to disperse all the cavils that have ever been urged against them.
The reader can also now appreciate
another charge made a little farther on,* “that we not only undervalue the
obvious sense of the Bible, but decry, and speak evil of it, and
treat it much after the manner of infidels."' Infidels object that
the style of Scripture is often bald, unclassical, or obscure: that there is
much in its historical parts that is improbable: that many of its narratives
contain no important instruction on their face; certainly none worthy of a Divine
origin: that the Jews, the people of God, were far from being an amiable or
virtuous people: that some of their most commended Patriarchs and Kings and
Prophets, were tolerated in immoralities and crimes which would now exclude
them from good society: that many of the rites of their religion were frivolous
or burdensome: that its statements of religious doctrine and of the attributes
of the Deity are often contradictory to reason and to themselves: that its
teachings are often opposed to true morals, and true science: and that the
narra- tivesof the Evangelists present discrepancies which have never been
reconciled. They point to the varying and absurd dogmas, the immoralities and
cruelties of professed Christians, to Transubstantiation, to the history of
Galileo, and of every other great contributor to science; to the recent “Life
of Jesus,” by Strauss, which seems thus far to have put the whole
Protestant clergy to a nonplus. That much of this is exaggeration we
know, it having been exposed by the Christian champions; but something of it
is also true, and the line of defence injudiciously taken up by the
latter has but served to confirm the assailants in their error. Bodinus,
according to Henry More, f gave it as his judgment that “ the
unskilful handling of the French
Divines upon the literal sense of Moses [in his account of the fall of
man], had bred many hundred thousands of Atheists in that country!”
Now what is the reply of Swedenborg
and his followers to these things ? It is, that the style of Scripture,
whatever may be its outward aspect, is a divine style: that its
excellence and inspiration are that it contains within its simple
exterior a systematic, profound, and spiritual meaning : that the first
chapters of Moses were not designed to be interpreted literally, but that they
contain most important truth and instruction nevertheless: that the same is
true of all its narratives however trivial they may appear to a superficial
reader : that the Jews were selected by God, not as being the best of nations,
but simply to represent a Church, of whose truths its ceremonials were
aptly significant: that the aberrations or failures of their leading characters
were simply permitted to prevent worse offences, and not approved:
that the Word of God is written according to the usual appearances of nature,
and does not decide dogmatically on matters of science, and yet that
true philosophy and true religion are not opposed to each other, but entirely
harmonious : that though the Word is the property of all, it is not understood
without a doctrine to guide the reader , which doctrine must
first be drawn from the literal sense by one who is in illustration from the
Lord: that otherwise heresies and fallacies might be imbibed
from the sense of the letter, which it would be hurtful to confirm : but that
with its aid and that of the spiritual sense, all-apparent difficulties and
discrepancies may be reconciled, and all false doctrine avoided!
and that the past mistakes, and errors, and misconduct of professing Christians
are to be ascribed to the ignorance or perverseness of individuals, or to the
circumstances of their age, and not to Christianity itself, the tendency of
which when genuine and operative is to dispel all error and evil, and to
diffuse light and love, or goodness and truth, throughout the world. And this
rational and conciliatory course, is “decrying,” and speaking evil of the
Bible, and “ treating it after the manner of Infidels!” Verily, we have here a
wise and just, and valiant defender of the Faith!
The fact that Swedenborg, taught there
was an internal sense in scripture will have been seen from our answers
to certain of the objections which precede. It is so generally known to those
who have heard anything of him, and his system of religion, that perhaps a
majority of such as have derived their information from common rumor, suppose
that he believed in no other sense, and we may fairly infer, from the
above and similar passages, that it is one honorable purpose of this candid
critic to confinn his readers in such false impression. The preliminary letter
of our friend having treated at some length of this subject, will supersede
much of what we should otherwise address to our readers in this connexion.
The question “ whether there is such a
sense in Scripture ” depends not upon the fact of its appearing arbitrary to
“ordinary minds,” or to “ the uninitiated j who will not take the requisite
pains to satisfy themselves of its presence : nor yet upon that other question,
whether it has been discovered or is discoverable by this Reviewer. If we chose
to be rude, we might reply in the words of Johnson on a similar occasion, “
Sir, I am bound to find you in arguments, but not to furnish you with brains.”
But we will say that it argues little modesty or decorum in him to assert that
what lie cannot see, must therefore be invisible to all others : that
numerous individuals in different countries, nations and languages—very many of
whom, in point of perspicacity (if we may judge from his book) would compare
advantageously with himself—should concur, without any ostensible motive of
worldly interest, in practising a fraud on themselves • But above all that he
should set up his farthing candle against the great lights Christian Church,
who have declared by scores their belief in such a sense, of the though they
have not always succeeded in detecting it. In explaining ourselves farther,
the reader will pardon the repetition of a few principles already laid down.
Swedenborg teaches that there is a
spiritual world prior to, and distinct from the natural—which, however, are
united: that the latter is the product, continuation, or outbirth of
the former, and yet the foundation on which it rests, both as a whole
and in its several parts: that the spiritual world is the world of causes, and
the natural, the world of effects: that, by consequence, there is an analogy or
correspondence between natural and spiritual things: that this was known
to the early race of men on this earth, who looked through outward nature to
the Creator; and that as “ all nature was a theatre representative of his
kingdom and glory,” much of their instruction and wisdom was derived through
this medium : that, in process of time, as men declined from their rectitude,
the immediate preception of this analogy by the race in general was lulled, and
that for its preservation, much of this wisdom was committed to writing,—to
which as a probable origin we may trace those ancient forms of literature which
we term fable, allegory, historical legend, and at length poetry ; that the
original patriarchal Revelation, of which relics were long extant in many
nations, was by Divine Providence thrown into the same form which he calls “The
Ancient Word that as this was perverted and rendered comparatively useless, it
was substituted by that we now have, founded on the history of the Jewish
Nation, and completed in the canon of the New Testament : That whereas the
former was chiefly allegorical in its character, the latter is better adapted
to mankind in their fallen estate, in that it is historical, prophetic,
devotional, and preceptive in its forms,—but that nevertheless, JR has
throughout those books which were divinely inspired an internal sense in addition
to the literal, which can be made apparent to those whose minds are not
pre-occupied with false doctrine, or stained with evils of life.
All these several points, both in
general and in detail, he has expounded at great length in his different works.
Besides a separate treatise on the “ Sacred Scripture,” and a chapter in the
True Christian Religion, in which he has reiterated the same ideas—he dwells
particularly' on the subject of correspondence in separate essays which may be
found in other parts of his works * Much the larger portion of his writings are
expositional in their character, and his expositions consist in the application
of these principles to the Sacred Oracles, and showing that thereby a sense,
rational, coherent, and worthy of their author may be detected throughout. To
each new term as it arises, be assigns
‘As
in H. & H. 87-115; and the dissertations appended to various chap, in A. C-
2987-3003, 3213-3226, 3337-3352, 3472-3485; all of which may be found in vol.
iw a
meaning,—either rationally showing the grounds of the same; or otherwise declaring
that the reason was known to those who first employed it in a symbolical sense
(as in the names of places, individuals, &c.), and proving that the signification
thus assigned is not arbitrary by the fact, that wherever it is used in the
books of plenary inspiration, it will on trial yield its fitting and proper
quota to the sense of the entire passage.
Swedenborg having much to write, was
moreover the most methodical of writers. His works are divided into books or
chapters, and these again into sections or paragraphs the latter of which are
numbered. When he has once given an explanation he does not repeat it without
special occasion, but on the recurrence of the same topics he contents himself
with references to the passages where the exposition has been already set
forth. And thus it happens, that in simply presenting the results of the
principle as applied to a portion of Scripture, and these stated nakedly, the
several parts being also unconnected, they have oft-times an appearance both
arbitrary and unsatisfactory to those who will not be at the pains ro trace the
exposition backwards through those parts of his works where the significations
of the several terms are given at length and rationally enforced.
We readily admit that the spiritual
sense is not immediately seen and by all his disciples. His system of doctrine
is first adopted as being rational in itself, as of clear deduction from the
literal sense of Scripture, as reconciling its otherwise discordant parts, and
therefore as worthy of all acceptation. For a time this affords them sufficient
food for reflection and of gratitude for their escape from the thousand forms
of error by which they were previously led astray; to which may be added the
pleasure they take in the perusal of the Word |in its literal sense, which now
confirms all they have been taught, and when thus interpreted presents nothing
unworthy of a God of love.
This, however, does not lead them to
take on trust Swedenborg’s assertion of a spiritual -sense. They receive
nothing in that way but statements of fact which cannot be submitted to their
own observation, and on the testimony of a credible witness. They examine his
principles here also, and finding that when properly applied they do explain
the Scripture as asserted by him : that they yield a meaning often coincident
with his doctrine, and always confirmatory of it, and this throughout the
Word, they conclude that the invention of such a system is impossible
and therefore they accept it as true. If the principle be false, or deceptive,
or arbitrary, could it produce such uniform results in the hands of persons
thus separated both in time and space ?
To those who may wish to examine it
with candor, we may say, that besides the portions of the writings of
Swedenborg specially devoted to its elucidation and which are mentioned above,
there -are among the collateral works of the Church sufficient aids for the
purpose. The principle is largely set forth by Mr. Noble in his “ Plenary
Inspiration of the Scriptures,” who, after stating the obvious truth, that “The
Word of God” must of course
contain a profounder meaning than any possible word of man, shows that an
internal sense has been recognized from the earliest ages of the Church: that
it is impossible without it to defend the faith against infidels—many parts of
Scripture being otherwise inexplicable. He moreover defends it against cavils :
fortifies it by the authority of some of the most celebrated doctors of the
Christian Church, and illustrates it by numerous examples from Scripture. Other
books, such as those entitled “ The Key of Knowledge,” and “ The Book of
Practical Piety,” besides a general explanation of Swedenborg’s principle of
analogy, furnish numerous examples of its successful application to passages of
the Word. Not to mention detached essays on the general subject dispersed
through the periodicals of the church, volumes of sermons are extant which
explain consecutively large portions of the Word, as “The Lord’s Prayer,” “ The
Decalogue,’’ “ The Journey of the Israelites through the Wilderness.” To which
may be added others expository, either in whole or in part, of such other
passages as the parables and miracles of our Lord. Nay, every separate sermon
—of which very many have been published—is nip art devoted to the explanation
of the spiritual sense of the passage on which it is founded. All these being
of necessity popular in their character, though some previous knowledge of the
system is of course required, must naturally enter at some length into the
rational explanation of such parts of the system as relate to the matter in
hand.
Now Dr. P. includes in the catalogue
of works as read by him, Swedenborg’s Arcana Coelestia, True Christian Religion,
Sacred Scripture, Noble’s Plenary Inspiration, Parsons’ Essays, and nineteen
volumes of the N. J. Magazine. And it so happens that in this last are to be
found not only numerous essays and sermons of the character above stated,
besides various others in justification of the spiritual meaning attached by
Swedenborg to many single terms used in Scripture, and among them nearly every
one of those which this critic has made the subjects of his remark; but,
distributed through the early volumes an entire exposition of the Apocalypse
in which the spiritual meaning of every term as it occurs in that book, is
incidentally given as it occurs, rationally explained, and adapted to popular
perusal, without the necessity of recurring to the works of Swedenborg for the
signification of any particular word or passage.
Had the Reviewer been really desirous
to do justice to the system, would he not have attacked it in its principle;
shown wherein it was arbitrary, or fanciful, or unsatisfactory; and endeavored
to account for the fact of its yielding a coherent meaning throughout those
books which we assert to be really the Word of God, and not in the others ? But
instead of this, the only course which would have been becoming in an honorable
or conscientious critic, he has resorted to a species of trickcry as paltry as
any we find iuthe columns of the unscrupulous, parti- zan, political editor.
For, by way of giving his readers the fairest opportunity of judging its
merits, he has offered some ten or a dozen scraps of interpretation, in
garbled quotations, without in a single instance stating the facts and
reasons on which the interpretation was founded; taking care, however, both
to select and present his specimens so as best to excite the prejudices and
hostile feelings of his evangelical readers. The truth is, such fragments of
the spiritual sense as Dr. P. has given in a separate and isolated form, will
convey an idea of its real character about as adequate as would the rough notes
on which an orator founds an eloquent oration, to one who neither heard the
speaker nor read his address ; or as an analysis compared with a clothed
and finished treatise; in a word, as a skeleton in lieu of a Grecian statue. It
cannot be expected of us that we should give a detailed reply to objections
such as these and urged in such a spirit.. For, besides that it would
unreasonably lengthen this Review, we deem it unnecessary to repeat
explanations which have been already given, and must content ourselves with
referring our readers to authorities known to this Lecturer, and which
will enable them to judge of the fairness of his strictures on this head We may
be excused however for a brief reference to certain collateral matters.
The “ Dictionary of Correspondences,”
at which he flouts, was not intended for popular use, nor designed for those
who have no previous knowledge of the subject and have not made its philosophy
a particular study. It consists— like any other Dictionary—of terms with their
several significations; and originally contained copious extracts from the
writings of Swedenborg explanatory of these. In the present edition, it is
expressly stated in the advertisement, that all such passages are omitted,
inasmuch as it was drawn up for the benefit of such as were presumed already to
possess the works of Swedenborg, to which it would serve as an index, as well
as for the purpose of aiding those who already acknowledged his principles, in
tracing the spiritual sense of Scripture. In the passage which the Lecturer has
quoted he has taken care to suppress the references to those parts of
Swedenborg's writings which state the reasons for the several meanings which he
has given to the Word.
That there are more significations
than one to a particular word, is a strange objection indeed. The same term
is used sometimes in a good, at others in a bad sense, in which case the
meanings are opposite; but the proper sense may always be determined
from the context and the nature of the subject. In other cases the senses are
not contradictory or unlike,—but indicate different gradations of the same
radical meaning : the which is again determined by the connexion, or particular
theme. When qualified by these considerations the various spiritual
significations of Scripture terms may be shown to be both rational and
necessary. If the Lecturer will turn over the leaves of any large dictionary
of the Latin, Greek, or English language, he may chance to find numerous words
with more than a score of meanings. Does he therefore suppose that those
languages are unsettled in their meaning? or capricious or arbitrary in the use
of tenns ?
Swedenborg, in fine, teaches that the
knowledge derived from the literal, grammatical sense of Scripture, with all
the aids of sacred criticism—the employment of which he by no means
discourages—is not all the instruction it was intended to afford. Its
narratives relate not alone to the history of the Jews or their ancestors : its
prophecies to something more than the fortunes of earthly kingdoms. They who
will learn to pierce this outward veil may find that its deeper significance
relates to the Lord, to heaven, the church, to the things of faith, and to the
regeneration of man, or to the opposites of all these. And that we may
the better conceive the process of regeneration, in which we are specially
interested, it is also proper that we understand the constitution of man.
According to him, then, all tilings in the universe which are according to
divine order have reference to goodness aud truth ; those not in order, to evil
and falsehood. Of both these are different kinds, referable respectively to the
will and understanding of man; in each of which there are three degrees. The
general cast of character is determined by the prevalence of the intellect or
the affections, which draws a still broader Une of distinction between the
sexes. And as man is destined to live for ever, we are told there are three
heavens prepared to receive the varieties of mankind, each of which is again
subdivided into two great regions. These are not distinctions without a difference,
and he who will obtain a definite conception of each, will find the spiritual
sense gradually becoming clearer to his perceptions, provided he cherish no
errors of doctrine inconsistent therewith.
To descend for a moment to matters
which the Reviewer has made the subjects of special criticism. It is to be
understood that “the term Science is not employed by our author in the confined
sense in which it is now chiefly used in English, to express an accurate and formal
knowledge of the phenomena and laws of nature ; nor yet according to the
original meaning of the Word, to signify knowledge in general: but to denote
knowledge that exists in the mind only as a collection of facts,
distinct from any exercise respecting it of understanding or intelligence.”
These are gathered by the power of observation and preserved by memory, to
which the natural man is fully competent. Above this is the faculty of
intelligence or the ability to reach conclusions by a process of reasoning. A
still higher gift is that of wisdom, or the power of immediately perceiving
truth—a faculty recognized by the Platonic philosophy, and by many Christian
writers—and the two last are said by Swedenborg to be characteristic
respectively of the spiritual aud celestial man. In the symbolic language of
Scripture, the first of these principles is shadowed forth by Egypt, the second
by Assyria, and the third by Israel. The successive development and conjunction
of these, is signified in Isaiah xix. 23-25. That Egypt was an expressive type
of the more external principle of the human mind must be obvious to those who
recal the most striking characteristics of that nation, its wonders of mere
art, and yet its strange proneness to the most debasing idolatry. The like analogy holds of Assyria, when we
consider her relative vicinity to and the consequent intercourse of her
learned Chaldteans with the subtle and metaphysical philosophers of ancient
India. Israel, as occupying a central situation relative to the other two, and
as being the seat of the church, which receives her revelations directly
flora God, is the still more fitting type of that power of direct
perception—the highest endowment of the understanding.
The same principles are also
symbolized respectively by a wood, a grove, and a garden. In a wood or forest
the trees appear promiscuously and without order. If traversed at all by paths
none but those who happen to be familiar with their windings can tell whither
they lead; and its products are comparatively useless until improved by
cultivation or wrought into other forms. In a grove this confusion measurably
disappears. Its trees are disposed in groups and pervaded by walks which may
afford pleasant shade or agreeable prospect, yet without yielding fruit. In a
garden, finally, we have herbs, flowers and fruits, accessible, living,
constantly renewed, and arranged in an order which is clearly intelligible.
Now, however obvious the analogy may be to others, all this may appear
arbitrary to the Bangor Professor. Be it so. I Non tibi spiro I” In No. 208 of
the True Christian Religion he may possibly divine the cause of its being hid
from his eyes.
“ But why use the word Egypt to denote
Science, when the proper word might be used just as well ?”* And why do the
evangelical preachers pray for the prosperity of their Zion, when the
word “ Church” would do as well 1 or for “ refreshing showers” and so
forth, when they wish to get up “an awakening 1” Simply because symbolical
terms are more expressive, less apttochange their signification than abstract,
and address themselves more directly to the imagination and the affections of
the mass of mankind, for whom the Word was intended as much as for others.
Swedenborg taught that in ancient
times names were expressive of the qualities of those who bore them,
and that all the proper names in Scripture are therefore significative. “ Why
then,” asks our critic, “ will not the Books of Chronicles admit of the
mystical interpretation as well as the Book of Kings, seeing many of the same
names are to be found in both ?” Why does a Handel draw his fine harmonies from
the same organ, which in the hands of the unmusical, produces only a horrible
discord ? “ To be sure,” to use his own phrase, “ there are good words” even hi
the libel before us, though so badly put together that instead of being a
candid and dignified argument, we have found it for tha most part a tissue of
misrepresentations. If he verily Supposes that this method of interpretation “
puts it in the power of ingenious, fanciful, designing men, to make anything
or nothing of the Scriptures as they please,” he is at liberty to make the
experiment himself, and we doubt whether, with all his gifts in that way, he
could succeed in imposing on a single New-Churchman, who was a tolerable
proficient in the system.
But the greater number of his
strictures relate to instances taken from our author’s Exposition of the
Apocalypse. The motive here may, perhaps, be divined without a breach of
charity. In that book are foretold the errors and apostacy of both the great
branches of the Primitive Christian Church, and a promise is held forth of a
New Church, to which shall be imparted genuine faith. Now, if by caricature,
garbling, suppression, and the like arts, the reader can be diverted from
examining the grounds of the interpretation for himself, a double object will
be accomplished. Suspicion will be made to rest on the rule itself, as well as
its pretended results, and attention be drawn away from the errors of the Protestant
faith.
The Reviewer, if we may judge from his
book, has rather a fondness for detecting contradictions. If his propensity
that way be really so strong, we hope he will permit us to make a suggestion
for his benefit. He professes already to have read largely of the writings of
Swedenborg, and his followers ; and as he reads with such remarkable expedition
he cannot consider it oppressive if we propose that he add one other to the
catalogue. The book to which we refer is Clissold's “ Apocalyptic Interpretation.”
His former search for contradictions has been thus far unavailing, but if he
will “ ponder” this work, he may read in them to his heart’s content. The two
first volumes consist principally of extracts from Evangelical
Expositors, who have commented on the Apocalypse; and as such have some claim
on his regard. But if the history of all literature, sacred or profane, exhibit
another such heterogeneous compound of conflicting hypotheses, and extravagant
opinions, yet all advanced with the most confident dogmatism—or an equal jumble
of unfortunate guesses, realizing the ideal of “ confusion worse confounded,”
we have yet to learn, where it is to be found. We defy any one who believes the
Apocalypse to be indeed a book of Divine Inspiration, to read the monstrous
record without lamenting the enormous waste of intellect: the worse than
useless expenditure of ingenuity and talent in the numerous attempts to
unravel its mysteries, which are there exposed. When the Bangor Professor
shall have digested this olla podrida, he may, with a better grace,
complain of Swedenborg's Exposition, and if he will moreover extricate his
brother-expounders from the labyrinth in which they find themselves, he will be
entitled to their lasting gratitude. (See Append. G.)
The extreme importance of Doctrinal Truth, and the incalculable
injury which has resulted from its absence, appear not to have been
sufficiently appreciated heretofore by Christains themselves. A writer in the
“New- Churchman” having exactly expressed our own thoughts on this subject, we
venture to quote the following:
“ Common sense would seem to dictate
that to know himself—to know God—to
understand his Word, as a necessary preparation to a just discharge of
duty, was the proper study of man—his obvious interest, as well as the highest
guerdon of intellectual exertipn. Accordingly, we hesitate not to say, that the
neglect of this duty has, in its proximate and remote consequences, been
productive of more evil than all other causes combined, and the rather that
most others may be traced to this.
“ What caused the first corruption of
Christianity, and originated the early heresies ? Not understanding his
Word. What raised up Arius and his furious antagonists I The same cause.
What generated Islam, and hermetically sealed Paganism against all farther
approaches of the Church I The misinterpretation of Scripture. What
severed the Greek and Latin Churches ? What gave Romanism it tremendous power,
and afforded the pretext for withdrawing the precious treasure from the
people’s hands ? And when, in the Divine Providence, the nations arose in their
indignation, reclaimed their lost inheritance, and were about to hurl their
spiritual tyrants from their thrones, what arrested the reformation, and has
bound them ever since in the chains then forged anew 1 What, even now,
in Catholic countries, divides the population between Infidelity and
Fanaticism, and has rent Protestantism into shreds; which, in its turn, has
occasioned a countless host of evils ? This—this is the perennial fount
from which these bitter waters have flowed.
And as a man’s ideas
of religion oecupy the very centre of his mind, and modify his views of all
other subjects, of course these diversities were followed by corresponding
outward changes. Minor differences generated extreme opinions, followed by
prejudice, alienation, wars, inveterate national hate.” 1
Again, we ask, “in the view of these
things,” is it not natural to wish for Divine Interpretation 1 Can we ever be
sufficiently grateful if he has interposed to dispel the doubt and
uncertainty which have heretofore brooded over his Word ?
Now this Reviewer affects to be amazed
at the idea of the “man-child,” spoken of m Rev. xii. 5, being “ Swedenborg’s
works.” But what if these ivorks contain the true doctrine, which the
whole sacerdotal caste had not discovered in seventeen centuries! and for the
want of which the Church had been rent into fragments, and well-nigh
overwhelmed in ruin I
Again, water, from its
cleansing and purifying properties, and as the medium for conveying nourishment
to the body, is, in Scripture language, the symbol of truth, which
renders analogous benefits to the soul. Like other discoverers of treasure,
Biblical commentators have been prone to say with the king of Egypt of old, “
My river is mine own, and I made it for myself.”* But when this eritic would
remark on the “ modesty” of Swedenborg’s declaration that the “river of water,”
predicted in Rev. xxi. 1, is to be fulfilled by his own expositions, his
intended reproach is in truth but a merited encomium • for our author, in his
letter to the king of Sweden, has thus disclaimed the credit of having
originated them. “ This knowledge is given to me from our Saviour not for
any particular merit of mine, but for the great concern of all Christians'
salvation and happiness." He never supposed that his interpretations
would have either beauty or clearness in the eyes of one who worshiped three
Persons or Gods; or, who hoped to be justified by his faith alone, and that an
unintelligible belief.
The Lecturer touches lightly on the
subject of a millennium, the ancient reveries on this head, and that of
a “personal reign of Christ on earth,” being now somewhat discredited by the
reecnt explosion of Millerism. Those who sincerely wish to see
Swedenborg’s ideas on the spiritual sense of numbers, can find them in a
separate volume. Pythagoras, we dare say, was derided by all the
conceited sciolists of his day for his speculations on the same theme.
That the Alexandrian Jew's, and many
of the early Fathers believed in a •Spiritual Sense, is most true;
though they were not successful in penetrating its real character. But neither
Origen, nor any other Christian writer was Swedenborg’s “ exemplar” in his
method. His early studies lay in a different direction, and he was not familiar
with such writers. But when he did enter •on the investigation of saered truth,
he accomplished what they attempted. There is, however, a piece
of reasoning which this critic appears to have made his exemplar,
not only here but in other parts of his book. “ There is a river hi Macedon,
and there is a river in Monmouth—and there are salmon in both,
therefore,” &e.
Ez. xxix. 3.
His Canon of Interpretation, “ that
the words of Scripture should be understood in the same senses now as
when delivered,’’ might prove uncertain and of difficult application. What is
that sense, and how is it to be ascertained I Have literal
interpreters uniformly concurred here in their judgments ? Is not the reverse
of this notorious to all ? The Bible is the Word of God, and not of man.
When man has recorded it truly, his work, in this respect, is done. The Divine
Oracles are intended for all generations; and it is not indispensable
that the reporter, or his first readers shall fully understand them. How many
of the Prophets fully understood their own prophecies ? Did not the Disciples
often misunderstand the words of their Master ?* Were they not to the last
mistaken with regard to the Second Coming, and all its kindred topics. They
probably knew the meaning of our Lord’s words as well or better than his other hearers
; but if their knowledge was perfect, why did they not write a perpetual
commentary thereon, and thus prevent the errors of their successors, which
occasioned the calamities we have told. The spiritual sense of Swedenborg is
separate and distinct from the literal; and they mutually illustrate each
other; whereas either, if alone, would be a source of doubt and conflicting
interpretation.
Before proceeding to another subject,
it is proper to advert for a moment to a grave charge of the Reviewer, which he
has repeated more than once.f It is “ that Swedenborg rejects more than
one-half the sacred books which make up the Bible.” Now if the offence were
true as alleged, the books said to be rejected constitute but little more than
a fourth in quantity of the whole ; and we wdnder that it did not occur to the
accuser, that if the doctrine deduced from the former be correct, the latter,
if they contradict that doctrine, cannot be divine. But it is not true that our
author rejects any of the books commonly bound up with the Bible, except
the Canticles and Apocrypha. His statement is as follows: “The books of the
Word are all those which have the internal sense; but those books which have
not the internal sense, are not the Word. The books of the Word in the Old
Testament are, the five books of Moses, the book of Joshua, the book of Judges,
the two books of Samuel, the two books of Kings, rhe Psalms of David, the
prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel,
Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi; and, in the New Testament, the four evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke,
John, and the Revelation. The rest have not the internal sense.” Now if it be a
fact that the rest have not the Spiritual Sense—and this can only be
tested by learning and applying the system of interpretation—the “pretence,”
not for “rejecting,” but for placing them in a lower grade than the others, is
clearly sufficient. Inspiration is a thing of degrees. He believed that these
books were written with as high a degree of inspiration, as this Reviewer !
and Christians generally ascribe to any part of the Word : that they contain
the truth and may be expounded in accordance with his doctrine : that they
have been and will continue to be highly useful to the Church; and they are
often—especially the Acts and Apostolical Epistles—quoted by him and his
followers, in illustration of his doctrines. If
John
vi. 63 ; viii. 43; Luke xxiv. 45. it be true that “ the earth abideth
for ever,” the Word of God must endure as long. And there should be some
unerring test by which to distinguish it from all human productions. Internal
evidence alone can suffice for this, as all external proof is liable, in the
lapse of ages, to loss, corruption, change, or uncertainty. But to assert that
there is no historical evidence for the distinction, proves either the
ignorance of the Lecturer, or else that he has not read the books mentioned in
his Preface.” A like division was made
by the Jews in the books of the Old Testament; our Lord spoke only of “Moses,
the Prophets, and the Psalms ;”f and Eusebius assures us that the beloved
disciples added the Apocalypse to the four Gospels to complete the Canon of the
New Testament. We have nothing but uncertain tradition, or the arbitrary
decision of councils, or the opinion of private Doctors in favor of the other
books. But our space will not permit us to add more on this subject to what has
been already and better said by others.
SWEDENBORG’S DOCTRINE OF THE FUTURE LIFE
VINDICATED FROM DR. POND’S CAVILS.
The Scriptures not only teach us that
man is immortal, but that there is a future state of happiness or misery, to
one or the other of which he is surely tending. When this has become the
settled conviction of a rational being, can anything be more natural than that
he should desire to know something of that country which is to be his eternal
home ? There was a time when man walked with his God, and enjoyed friendly
intercourse with the denizens of that world, but he immersed himself in sense
and the blessed vision was closed. The individual cannot now draw aside at
pleasure the curtain that hides the future from his view: and the notices given
in the Sacred Word, though far more numerous than are generally supposed, are
so brief and scat, tered that but few can compose them into a picture
sufficiently harmonious for steady contemplation. Yet the desire of knowledge
still remains, nor do the Sacred Oracles forbid the hope that yet more light
will be vouchsafed in accordance with the natural and lawful wish. And in
the absence of positive information the powers of conjecture and imagination
have been employed to divine the future condition. So long indeed has Fancy
rioted in this field, that it has come to be regarded as something like
fairy-land, which is not to be invaded by the profane step of matter-of-fact
speculation, and to attribute to such scenes aught that resembles Earth, is too
gross for sublimated minds. A shadowy vagueness hovers over the landscape, its
features being for the most part a blank, and where there has been an effort to
be more definite, it has rarely been attended with happier success. For die
picture has been modified and colored by the doctrinal opinions previously
held, and has re-acted to sustain or confirm them in turn. If we ask. the
Tri-personalist believer in the resurrection of the material body, “ where is
heaven ?” he answers, that it is somewhere in space, but whether it be in the
sun of our system, or in a greater central sun, or beyond the stars, or is to
be on this earth when the soul and body shall have been re-united, he
cannot tell. And whether the abode of the lost be beneath die ground, or in the
moon, or in a comet, or some other part of material space, he is equally
uncertain. In the conception of such an one as the Father sits on the dirone of
Heaven, with his Son at his right hand, and the Holy Spirit before him, aud
surrounded by a winged order of beings, the ministers of his (or their)
pleasure, cast in full perfection and retaining their original purity, so the
devil is the president of hell, and attended by his minions who fell w’ith him
from a more exalted state. How natural also that the believer in predestination
and the validity of a death-bed repentance, should suppose that simple
admission into this place is the one condition of happiness, and
that as the Deity has his swift-winged messengers to execute his will in other
parts of his dominion, so their sole duty is to surround thO throne and
sing the praises of Him who has made them the subjects of his distinguishing
grace. Nor has their “God of vengeance” failed to provide a place of punishment
for those whom his omnipotent will chose to “ pass by,” though they perchance may
have done nothing more to forfeit his favor than the others. Such js the
great outline of the picture. And so long as this was not disturbed, the
filling up and accompaniments might be left, as we said, to the imagination of
each individual. If the excellence of painting consists in loading the canvass
with gaudy colors without regard to perspective, or if the perfection of poetry
is attained by clothing its subject in the hues of the most improbable fiction,
or if eloquence be, as has sometimes been said, the art of exaggeration, then
surely never has any theme been so adorned by art, nor ought any to be now more
attractive. But the true master of the pencil observes the laws of proportion,
and the variety and relief of light and shade. The genuine poet does not
complain that science has disenchanted the world of all its beauty. And
the most effective eloquence is that which with shnple language and just
thoughts makes its direct appeal to reason and the heart. He also, who wishes
to deter from sin will find his denunciations the more effective by adding
nothing incredible to the suffering which inevitably follows its commission.
And such is the representation given
by Swedenborg of the other life, though it be regarded as simply the product of
his own brain, and not, as he solemnly avers, a deduction from “things seen and
heard.” Nor are we surprised that it should be viewed as tame and spiritless,
or otherwise unworthy the lofty theme, by those whose judgments have been
intoxicated with the extravaganzas of popular poets and preachers. This world
is but a state of probation, and as such, the scqne for the commencement of a
career which is to continue for ever. Here, therefore, we find all varieties
of character mingled and moving apparently on the same plane. As the future
world is also designed for the residence of men on their departure from
hence, is it improbable that it is in some sort a continuation of this,
with circumstances somewhat similar 2 There, indeed, we learn they will be
ultimately classified according to their fixed characters. The blessed will
perceive each other as men, and the objects with which they were once familiar,
divested of whatever can offend, refined, purified, immeasurably exalted, and
all as the reflection of their own internal states, while the converse will be
equally true of those who have disqualified themselves for the like happiness,
and in either case the individual will have wrought out his own destiny without
any irreversible decree of his Maker.
In this aspect, the representations of
Swedenborg appear to us as scriptural, rational, and credible, apart from his
own character as a witness. And the general air of probability by which they
are characterised has been conceded by cautious and sober thinkers, who did
not accept his doctrine generally. But here, also, as elsewhere, Dr. Pond finds
nothing to approve, and though we wish him, and doubt not he has, a
better model for his general conduct, yet herein he appears to have taken as
his exemplar a leading character in the most celebrated of German dramas, and
enacts “ the spirit that still denies.” It is easier we know to
criticise than to originate or improve. But we regret that Dr. Pond did not
draw out his own ideas of what was probable on this head, for then should we
have been better prepared to weigh his judgment of the testimony of Swedenborg.
In responding to other objections we
have anticipated certain explanations which would more properly have appeared
here, but were they repeated in connexion with the brief statements now to be
made, their aspect would still remain so fragmentary as to convey a most
imperfect and therefore unjust conception of the whole. Our view of the other
life is so different from that which generally prevails, that we despair of
imparting to the reader to whom the subject is altogether new, within our
limits, anything like an adequate idea, and for further satisfaction would
commend him to that portion of the works of Swedenborg in which it is
especially treated. We must, therefore, content ourselves with a very brief
notice of the oft-repeated, oft-refuted objections of this Reviewer.
Among the distinctive teachings of
Swedenborg relative thereto, are the following, some of which have been already
advanced: “ There are two worlds, a natural
and spiritual, the latter within the former, and though distinct therefrom
yet united thereto by correspondence.” Mau, while in this world is
really an inhabitant of both, for he carries enclosed within his natural body a
spiritual body, or spirit which is the real man himself. When
the former is laid aside by death, it is never resumed, but the latter rises
up in that world which is to be his eternal abode. The home of the spirit
then is not beyond the stars or in any part of space, but within the visible
world. There are in Scripture numerous and clear intimations of these truths,
though often and most strangely overlooked. The instances there recorded are also
frequent, in which the de-
parted have been permitted—not to revisit
this world, that were impossible— but to be seen by persons still
living, whose spiritual eyes (though generally and wisely closed) were
opened for that purpose. And such a power, possessed by every man, may be
called into action whenever Providence sees best. Such was the spiritual
vision of the Patriarchs and Prophets, of the Apostles and early Christians
; and though many since have falsely pretended to its exercise, yet it is not
superstition to believe that all were not deceivers or deceived. The
time having arrived when knowledge was to be imparted which was important “to
the great concerns of all Christians, salvation and happiness,” Swedenborg, as
we believe, was selected as the instrument of its conveyance, and it was by this
method that he learned the things, a part of which we are now stating.
In opposition to the incongruous
heresy so widely prevalent, which teaches that God is “ without body or parts,”
and yet that he exists in three persons, he declares in accordance with the
Scriptures, that God is a man,* and no other man than our Lord Jesus
Christ in his divine humanity, who dwells in light inaccessible,! or in a
spiritual sun. Beneath his all-seeing eye, though at an infinite distance,
are spread out in separate expanses the three heavens spoken of by
Paul,! separated by the intermediate “ world of spirits,” or first receptacle
of departed souls, from the similarly divided abode of the infernals. These
three great regions make up “the spiritual world,” whose sole inhabitants
are of the human race, for “ man” and “ angel” are convertible terms, and
demons are butxthe spirits of the lost. But neither in the first or
third of these grand divisions are the gathered residents blended in the
confusion we see in this world, but all are collected into societies and
arranged according to an exact order, determined by their respective
characters, which have now been developed and most accurately discriminated,
congenial spirits being alone associated.
The human form is the highest and most
perfect of forms, uniting the excellencies of all others. It is the form of
God himself, the image in which man was made. It is the form he still
wears when he has become an angel. It is in this form that each society
of angels is disposed.|| It is the form in which the unnumbered societies
of angels are arranged which together make up the Universal Heaven, and which
is, therefore, called “ The Grand Man.”
Such in brief is the representation of
Swedenborg, and this last idea which
competent and unbiassed judges have
pronounced one of the most sublime and appropriate that ever entered rhe human
mind, is repudiated by this profound, and fastidious, and magnanimous critic,
who, moreover, never calls names,* as being “ supremely ridiculous, destitute
alike of sense aud decency, and worthy only of contempt 1” A Shakspeare
was lost in wonder and admiration when he contemplated that miracle of
creation, the human form. “ What a piece of work is man I ... in form and
moving, how express and admirable 1 . . . the paragon of animals! the glory
of the world f' The Grecian masters of old and the Raphaels and Angelos of
a Christian Age, have sunk in despairing efforts to transfer to marble or
canvass their bright ideal of its capacities and perfection. It is the form in
which are collected all the beauty, and grandeur, and harmony of earth, the
microcosm in which are exemplified all the arts and sciences which have slowly
been gathered through ages of meditation, from the numberless manifestations
dispersed tlirough the greater world. It is the form whose constitution and
movements furnish analogies to illustrate those of all societies of
men, from the family through all other subordinate bodies up to nations, and
states, and empires, and the Church of the Lord himself. It is the form before
which instinctive reverence has ever bowed as the representative of Deity. “
You touch heaven," said Novalis, “when you lay your hands on a human
body.” Yet Dr. Pond pronounces it indecent! in Swedenborg to carry out the
idea, because, forsooth, this form, although the “ wonder of wonders,” and the
work of Infinite Wisdom is made up of parts, some of which he affects to think
arc not to be spoken of to Christian men! And what, we would willingly
know after such puerile and contemptible criticism, what does he regard
as the more fitting disposition of the countless millions who pass from hence?
Would he have them jumbled together like a mob in a single room, or on the same
plane ? Or what more mathematical figure would he substitute therefor ? Must
they be arranged in circles or squares, or drawn up in ranks by battalions,
standing on clouds with no employment but unceasing song or prayer ?
But farther,—the immortality and
happiness of man depends on his conjunc' tion with his Maker and this conjunction is continually maintained
by the effluence of his Spirit which continually pervades creation through all
its spheres. Divine Providence—which does nothing without means—without doubt
employs the most appropriate, and though sufficient for the end, yet none
superfluous. How could this law of its operation be better illustrated than by
an arrangement which (with reverence be it spoken) facilitates the government
of His Spiritual Kingdom, and the bestowal of happiness on the varieties of
character, according to their diversified capacities ? And what other form is
there which admits of ever increasing additions without marring its symmetry ?
The principle in truth is as fertile as it is grand. Nor is there in the whole
compass of human thought, an idea which is susceptible of such varied and
useful application, or which carries light and order into so many intricate
subjects of inquiry. If then it be true that the inhabitants of Heaven and Hell
arc all of our race: if the former are truly wise, and the latter in a greater
or less degree insane: if their several states have been induced by
their conduct here : if however their apparent
characters on first entering the intermediate world, and until their final
destination is ascertained, do not differ materially from what they exhibited
here; and if those states are finally manifested by corresponding outward
appearances, according to a universal law of that world, as of ten declared by
Swedenborg, what is there in any of the passages excepted to by the
Reviewer, that should offend our reason, while they are in accordance with a
general theory which is rational in itself? If true knowledge and pure affections
elevate and refine the character here, will they do otherwise there ? If vice
and folly brutalize and degrade here, will their operation be suspended in the
other life I If fraudulent cunning is apt to recoil on him who employs it in
this world, why should it not prove his punishment, and be shown as real folly
in the other ? If party spirit lead men to confirm themselves in erroneous
opinions, the everlasting laws of divine order will not be altered for their accommodation,
but they must reap in the other life according as they have sowed in this. In
fine “ is it contrary to common sense to believe that all will then
think, feel, speak, act, enjoy and suffer according to the interior nature
which they have acquired in the world, and which they will no longer be able
to repress or disguise F That, as the divine counsels may be violated in
various ways, so their neglect or breach will be followed by as many several
species of disorder in the spiritual beings who have voluntarily perverted
their powers and that the suffering will be equally varied—bearing some analogy
to, and naturally growing out of, the offence ?
If th^se views are reasonable—and that
they are, who that dares to think for himself, or wishes to entertain just and
honorable ideas of his Maker, will venture to deny—we have yet auother inquiry
to make. If on being transferred to another sphere of being, we are not
metamorphosed into animals of a different species, what other supposition is possible
than that man will still be in circumstances appropriate to his yet imperfect
nature ? that there shall be a foundation whereon to stand analagous to earth,
with its varied surface of mountain, hill and valley; and its scenery, though
all spiritual, bearing some resem blance to a natural laudscape I Yet such a
picture, which is lauded as highly attractive or sublime when drawn out in the
harmonious numbers of Dante Milton or Pollok, or in the sermons and sacred
lyrics of the Orthodox,—or as probable,
when set forth in the conjectural dissertations of Watts, Isaac Taylor, and
Bishop Mant,—is instantly changed when confirmed by the report of one who has
had occular demonstration of its truth. Accordingly our Reviewer is deeply
scandalised at hearing that there appear in the Spiritual World, animals,
trees and plants; as also food and raiment, houses and temples, speech,
writing, books, libraries, and particularly the divine Word, in Heaven; forgetting,
however, that in every particular here named, the testimony of Swedenborg,
is corroborated by that of Scripture, as any one may satisfy himself by
consulting the references below.f And if farther fight is ever granted, how
are we to receive clearer ideas unless they be derived from a more particular
and definite account of what is there given in general terms ? Nor is it
improbable— as Revelation has always been progressive ; that many things
altogether new would be added to those partially known before.
vii.
9, 13, 14 ; Ez. ix. 2, 3 ; John xiv. 2; 2 Cor. v. 1; Rev. vii. 15 ; xi. 19; Ez.
ix. 3; Rev. x. 2; Ps. exix. 89. Dr. P. quotes, as a specimen of the incredible,
from a Memorable Relation of Swedenborg, which tells that an indignity offered
by an obstinate heretic to the Saered Word in the world of spirits, met with
present retribution—the profane touch of the individual and himself being both
instantly repelled. If he will recur to i Sam. v. 1-4 ; vi. 19, 20, he will
find a parallel and quite as strong a statement concerning the Word on Earth.
2.
He
repeats the old story of “ arts and trades” in that world similar to those on
earth. By this time, we take it for granted, the reader will not be surprised
when we assure him the pertinacious Doctor knew better all the time. The
mistake would have been natural and pardonable, for there has been a
mis-translation here, but that it has been corrected by Mr. Noble in his “
Appeal” (pp. 349-352, and note), one of the books which was read by the
Reviewer “ with the deepest attention.” The terms in theoriginal are “
artificia,” “ opera,” whieh are not only very general in their signification,
but when explained by the context, and limited by statements elsewhere made,
prove that Swedenborg could not have meant what has been frequently supposed. “
He constantly affirms that everything relating to food, habitation, and clothing
is, in the eternal world, provided and given gratis immediately from the
Lord ; and with these are connected nearly all of sueh employments which
are known on earth As to manual
operations in heaven, all that our author says respecting
them
is, that they are such as cannot be described by any words of natural language.
In the intermediate region or world of spirits, however, whieh is the first
receptacle of departed spirits, and where, at first, their state is not
very different from what it was in this life, there are employments more
similar, it would appear, to some upon earth; and it is by confounding our
author’s descriptions of this state irith his descriptions of heaven, that his
adversaries have framed the most specious of their misrejrresentations.
According to Swedenborg’s mode of describing this subject, every one, on
entering the other life, is at first in his externals, and then in a
state not unlike that in which he was in this world: but this is successively
put off, as his internals are opened; when the whole scene changes with
him and he passes to his final home in heaven or in hell. Of the nature of the
employments in hell he offers no description beyond this ; that they are mean
drudgeries.”
3.
The
“ judiciary proceedings” to which he alludes, refer to friendly arbitraments
by wise umpires for settling differences of opinion, to whieh any imperfect
beings, however exalted (Job iv. 17, 18; xv. 15), maybe supposed as liable.
4.
Again,
If man carries with him his whole body complete into the other world, the
organs of sense included, we may fairly presume that none of these
will be without its appropriate objects and gratifications,—as also its
natural repugnances,—and the denunciation of such a principle as “absurd” by
this critic, will be rather an argument of its probability, with the
discerning. Although the Catholics have used the phrase, there may be sueh a
thing as the “ odor of sanctity;” and while the blest are delighted with the
fragrance whieh is wafted to them from surrounding scones,—the wicked, who have
so perverted their whole being, as to call “good, evil” and “evil, good,” and
to “glory in their shame,” may find their delight in what is opposite
and offensive.
5.
We
must again remind the Doctor, that the appearances before the infernals arc phantasms,
and are not real in fact, though so to them while they last. And though
man is not reformed in this life “ by threats and punishments,” he may
be deterred by them, in the other, from the commission of
offences to which ho yet retains an inclination. (Pond, 219, 220, note.)
6.
He
quotes (222) the beginning of the description of the punishment of the
ruthless violator of innocence, and breaks off when his permanent horrors are
declared,—under the pretext, perhaps, that to give all Swedenborg’s Memorable
Relations, “would be to re-publish no inconsiderable part of his
volumes!” (227.) (They may possibly make as mueh as a twentieth.) He takes
care, however, to publish the abstract of an entire discourse (231-4); and “
strange” as that same snow-bank sermon may sound to him now—if he will read
over his owii Confession of Faith (and with no better attention than he has
given to the works of Swedenborg), he may recognize every position of the
discourse in that document. Many have heard every sentiment of it
from evangelical pulpits in this world, and why should not those who are
confirmed in such faith, preaeh it there. Time was, we suppose, when the like
was fulminated from every pulpit in New England; and if their occupants are
more cautious now, some of them do not fail to insinuate in private “ the
strong meat,” as they eall it, whenever they can find strong stomaehs to digest
it.
7.
One
of the functions of angels, according to Swedenborg, is to inspire good and
true
Before closing our remarks on this
head, there is one other subject to which we must briefly advert, as being
somewhat germane to Swedenborg’s account of the spiritual world. Is this the
only earth in the universe ? If there be others, are they inhabited by men ?
And, if peopled like our own, can a man during his life in this world become
acquainted with the character and condition of their inhabitants ?
affections
and thoughts into the minds of men, who are still in the flesh. The celebrated St.
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, was observed by him to be thus employed with
reference to thox: in a certain province of Africa ; and this, according to Dr.
Pond, is being in “literal Africa” at the present day.
He
wonders also, how the good old Bishop, who was onee a strenuous asserter of
Predestination, should have come to be in ftvor with Swedenborg. In any event
it would not be stranger than that Air. John Wesley should become an
authority with a Calvinist. But we will suggest a probable explanation. Now Mr.
W. himself thinks that this Father was never a Predestinarian in the modem
sense of that term; but that certain hasty, exaggerated expressions, which
escaped him in the heat of his controversy with Pclagius, were “ gleaned up by
Mr. Calvin,” and wrought as part of the materials into the system whieh goes by
the name of tile latter, who thenceforth gave this Father as authority for his
own extreme opinions. But supposing it true that the old Bishop went the
entire length, it is not unreasonable to believe that on entering the sphere of
truth, he renounced his errors on this head, and returned to his earlier and
more rational view: ; and that, being a lover of truth for its own sake, he
accepted its dictates on other and still more important subjects ; and farther
still, that on learning the grievous injury he had unwittingly done, lie should
se-'k to repair die same by inspiring more correct sentiments into the minds of
the living. He published large “ Retractations” of error during the latter
years of his life; he may have done more in the same kind afterwards. His
example, we have the eharity to believe, will be followed by many a -jvorthy
and honest evangelical of this day, who has hereditarily, or by the force of
other untoward circumstances, imbibed the like unworthy prejudices.
8.
Another
discovery is, that Swedenborg “ despised the Jews,” which were
impossible, if he were a “ religious” man. To this we have responded before,
but it may be as suitable an occasion as any other for explaining a statement
of his with regard to a most distinguished individual of that nation, whieh
seems to have taken the orthodox by surprise. Though he repeatedly declares
that the doctrines promulgated by him were derived from neither angel
nor spirit, but directly from the Lord himself, and though he published
nothing else of the truth of which he was not entirely assured ; yet with
regard to the state of persons, or sects, in the other life, his information,
being derived “ from things seen and heard,” was progressively obtained, and
in some cases subject to correction. His “ Spiritual Diary” was the
principal repository of these experiences, daily written down as they occurred.
Though its materials were extensively used in the preparation of the works
published under his inspection, yet itself was never published from the
original until very recently; nor are its declarations taken by New
Churchmen as evidence of the final state of any Scripture personage therein
mentioned, as it is an imperfect work, apparently intended only for his
private use, and does not contain the experiences of the last eight or ten
years of his life.
Now
we learn from his authoritative works, that the Jews, on entering the spiritual
world, generally desire, as is natural, to be permitted a sight of such ancient
Hebrews as Abraham, Moses, David ; and that as these calls are incessant, some
other Jew is frequently allowed to personate one or the other of those,
for the purpose in part of disabusing their brethren of the fond faney that the
r patriarchs, or ancient leaders, or the nation in general, were the especial
favorites of Heaven, on account of soma extraordinary personal qualities, or
for some more arbitrary reason. In the Spiritual Diary, a person presents hints
If to Swedenborg in the character of David, and this person, he
learns, is neither in his quality or condition «ueh as the orthodox generally
suppose David to be. But whether he was the real David or some other is
rendered doubtful by another passage of the same work, whieh speaks of David as
being among the blest.
Nor,
in one sense, do we deem it very important to ascertain. We need scarcely say,
that we take no pleasure in hearing that any one has taken the downward
road. But David’s public and private character are two different
things. It is with the former—his publie, representative capacity—and not with
his quality as an individual, that the reader of the Scriptures is chiefly
concerned. And it is by confounding these two things which should ever be distinguished,
not only in this case, but in that of other persons who figure in the Old
Testament, that much injury has been done to the cause of truth by its sincere
but
The advance of astronomical science
which has determined the position and relative importance of our planet in the
system to which it belongs, has settled the first question; and the theory of a
plurality of worlds may now be regarded as established without danger of its
being again shaken. The probability of their being also inhabited by
reasonable beings, is strengthened by so many other considerations that we need
not the plausible and pleasant philosophical romance of Fontenelle to persuade
our assent. The Creator neither puts forth his energies without a purpose, nor
is he wasteful of his means. The Prophet declares emphatically that this
earth was made to be inhabited* The laws of the divine order are uniform
in their operation. It is not then a hasty inference that other planets both of
our own and other systems in the Universe, are teeming with rational life.
And such, accordingly, we take to be
the general sentiment of Christians at the present day—though it has not been
uniformly so. For the Infidel has seized the concession as a favorable point
from which to direct his battery on a very darling, but very vulnerable
doctrine of the orthodox—we mean that of a vicarious atonement. We need
not explain here the precise character of the assailing argument. Suffice it to
say—it was regarded as so very formidable that the powerful intellect of a
Chalmers was called to the rescue. He obeyed the summons, and iu vindicating
his faith, poured forth that well- known storm of eloquence, his astronomical
discourses. When the first impression had subsided, it could not escape the
sagacity of his cooler brethren, that, so far as that doctrine was
concerned, this celebrated performance after all contained more of rhetoric
than logic; and one of them actually proceeded to cut the Gordian knot by
denying the probability of any other world being inhabited than this. But even
as political revolutions “ do not go backward,” we may likewise despair of ever
witnessing a general revocation of a position so thoughtlessly yielded, and
the Orthodox must reconcile,
mistaken advocates. For sueh
imprudence has given oeeasion to the infidel to vent his sarcasm on a Book
which eould declare that one whose career was stained with ferocious eruelty,
treachery and revenge, with sensuality, polygamy, adultery, and murder, could
yet be “ a man after God’s own heart
!” and we must own that we know of no other satisfactory inode of vindicating
the Scripture than the following, which we adopt from Mr. T. .Hartley Horne. “
In what sense was he a man after God’s own heart ? Wc answer : In his
strict attention to the law and worship of God; in his recognizing, throughout
his whole conduct, that Jehovah was King in Israel, and that he himself was
only his vicegerent; in never attempting to alter any of those laws, or in the
least degree to change the Israelitish constitution. In all his public
official conduct, he aeted according to the Divine mind, and fulfilled the
will of his Maker This
expression is never used in reference to his pri
vate
or personal moral conduct. It is used wholly in
reference to his uniform regard to the promotion of the interests of pure
religion, notwithstanding all temptations to idolatry and persecution.” (Horne’s
Introduction, Vol. I. p. 565.)
That
David was a man of mixed character there is reason to believe. There was at
times a display of generous, noble qualities. He was brave, accomplished,
magnificent, in his happier moods humble and devout—and we hope he sincerely
repented of that act which for deep and complicated baseness has scarcely its
parallel in history. Yet, to our mind, the reflections of Bayle on tlio
Scripture rceord of his life,—though retracted at the instance of his brethren
of the Reformed Chureh of Franee—have never been set aside; and certain it is,
that Peter, an inspired Apostle, publicly declared, more than one thousand
years after his death, that “ that
David is not ascended into the Heavens !” (Acts ii. 34.)
*
Isaiah xi". 18.
as best they can, their religion and
their philosophy, which are so seriously ini conflict on this as on many other
points*
But is it possible for man while in
the body to more than surmise the character and circumstances of the dwellers
on other worlds ? Swedenborg solemnly declares that it is : that he was
enabled to obtai n actual knowledge on this subject: and that it was
within the scope of his comprehensive commission to communicate a part of the
same to his fellow-men, and as he has clearly explained the mode in which this
knowledge was received, there must now be some other apology for withholding
belief than any intrinsic impossibility in the thing itself. Why then should
this be thought more improbable than any other species of Revelation ? Or, the-
power of spiritual vision being once conceded, shall man undertake to define
the limits to which Divinity may permit it to ascend 1 The obstacles which
retard the transition from place to place in this world do not hinder there. It
is similarity of state which brings the inhabitants of the spirit-world
into each other’s presence and communion. If Swedenborg was so far relieved
from the- trammels of the flesh as to be indulged in conference with tire
departed at all; what should hinder his being borne in spirit to the spheres of
those who once dwelt in other parts of the Lord s dominion : and that
successively as he was brought into corresponding states, or that they should
come to him in turn 1 And, as they brought all their memory along with
them, that he should learn from them the aspect of their ancient homes, or the
character and condition of their former and present associates ? x
Certainly, the Evangelical are estopped from all objections on the score of
intrinsic difficulty; for they profess to believe in the ministration of
angels, whose home they place at a yet greater distance, even beyond the stars!
Nevertheless, such knowledge or experience,
however interesting in itself or important as illustrating other subjects in
which we are more immediately concerned, is, if not entirely unique, so far out
of the range of ordinary acquisition, that he who pretends to its possession
must expect to meet with incredulity from large classes of men. Some will
believe nothing but what is tangible or passes before their eyes. Others, who
fear the imputation of easy faith, will plead the numberless marvels which have
been imposed in Protean forms on the weakness of mankind as sufficient warrant
for rejecting revelations which they choose to pronounce useless. The excessive
egotism of others again, forbids their rising above the earth even in thought,
white they suppose that this is virtually the centre of the universe, and
themselves the exclusive objects of divine consideration, for whose sole
benefit the immense apparatus of surrounding worlds was provided. And all such
have an ever-ready pretext for cloaking their real motives in the pretended
dread of • being wise above what is written.”
But he who reflects aright on the
greatness, the wisdom, the power, and providence of the Divine, and the extent
of His dominion “ who made Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of
the south when he sees “the stars walking in their brightness,” and remembers
that there are others with-
See
the last of Mr. Noble’s recent volume of Liters on Christian Doctrine. out number
which escape his vision, will also be willing to believe that he who made them
all and yet did stoop to save one which was rapidly sinking into night,
may also have “ other sheep which are not of this fold.” And as they are
all the children of the same Father, for whose power nothing is too great, for
whose care nothing too minute, so he may permit his subjects of one province to
learn that in other and distant places of his empire they have brethren who are
also “ the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand.”
Now Dr. P., whatever may be his
lurking disbelief, doesnot venture openly to deny the possibility of such
experience, or that its subject might be allowed to communicate the results to
the world. But aware of existing prejudices and apparently disposed to turn
them to account at the earliest period and to the fullest effect, “ he knew not
where else he could so well” (for his ow purposes doubtless) introduce his
comments on this matter, as in his first chapter ! although he had a
separate one towards the close of the book exclusively devoted to Swedenborg's
account of the spiritual world. The cunning Isaac ! And then by way of placing
his fairness beyond suspicion, he has ransacked the small volume, entitled
“Earths in the Universe,” in which Swedenborg had recorded these disclosures,
for such curious particulars as, with the aid of his own peculiar method of
collocation, might serve to “ answer” his readers. And after ill he has
produced nothing to which a parallel might not be found in the history of our
own Earth We think also that if these narratives could
afford “amusement” to this grave Professor, they ought to soften his heart and
induce forgiveness of an author, some of whose Memorable Relations concerning
individuals nearer home, lyppeuY to have excited his ire in no small
degree.
And first he thinks it “ a suspicious
circumstance” that Swedenborg saw no spirits from any other planets of our
system than those which were then known; and asks why he told us nothing of the
people of Herschel and the Asteroids ? But Swedenborg does not say that all
the planets of every system are actually inhabited; only that they are designed
to be when prepared for it. Dr. P. may •.onsult his friends, the
Geologists, as to how long a season of preparation was required for rendering
this earth a fit dwelling for man. The probability is that Uranus and the
others are not yet in that condition : and until he can prove to the contrary,
we shall not be much disturbed by his suspicions.
“I had a desire.” said Swedenborg, in
the introduction to his book, “ to know whether other earths exist, and of what
sort they are, and what is the nature and quality of their inhabitants :
moreover what is the particular genius, manner of life, and divine worship,
prevailing amongst the inhabitants of each particular earth.” To such points
as these were his inquiries directed in his interviews with those who were
permitted to impart the knowledge he sought. Alive to the infinite evils which
idolatry, polytheism, false doctrine, hypocrisy and spiritual tyranny, which
false learning, hollow refinement, and love of self and of the world, had
produced here, he naturally desired to know whether they existed and
were equally baneful and desolating in their operation on other orbs. He
therefore inquired as to their ideas of Divinity—whether they believed that He
existed in three persons 1 how they worshiped Him I whether they had a
written revelation among them ? whether they also believed that man
could be saved by mere thought ?
He would farther know whether their
wisdom consisted in 6oo£-lcaming and deference to man's authority—as
does so much of ours I Whether their states of society and manners or
their civil politics resembled those of earth ? Whether they were cursed with
our spurious civilization I Whether (to indulge an anachronism) such fears as
alarmed statesmen of the school of Malthus, agitated them also ? These and
such as these were the subjects of his curiosity. Dr. P. in like case, might
have questioned them as to their belief in three Gods, Justification by Faith
alone, Predestination, and “ the five points’’ generally.
Our readers, it is hoped, are now
furnished with explanations which will enable them to determine on the candor
and fairness of this Reviewer in his citations, and the merit of his
particular criticisms on our author's account of the future life. In this part
of our reply we have stood on the defensive. But we can assure both him
and them, that if we had chosen to adopt a different course, the weapons of
retort and the materials for carrying the war into hostile territory are
numerous and at hand, hi the books and declamations of evangelical Doctors. If
we were animated by a spirit of retaliation, we might present hi startling
contrast the representations which they have given of the eternal state
and its retributions—accounts wild, extravagant, puerile, ridiculous, incoherent,
dishonorable to God as impeaching his attributes of justice and mercy, inconsistent
with His Word and with the nature of man as a spiritual being, improbable,
incredible, impossible; accounts which have imposed on the weak, but with the
discerning have often brought religion into contempt, and the natural recoil
from pvhose hideous pictures has generated an opposite heresy of licentious
tendency; representations, in fine, which have raised insane hopes in the
wicked, have tortured the sincere Christian with useless fears, and driven the
timid to voluntary imprisonment, maceration, and despair. But we have
neither space, nor patience, nor inclination for such a task. And there is
reason to believe, from extant and growing evidence, that of these things the
orthodox themselves are heartily ashamed—there being a manifest improvement in
their imaginings since the day in which they had the whole field to themselves.
But we will ask, in the view of such errors, and their unhappy effects, whether
here is not another and a sufficient reason of Divine interposition for their
correction “by disclosing, through the only possible medium—the actual
experience of a human being not yet removed into that life by death—some
specific knowledge respecting the kind of existence there to be experienced by
all T’
Before proceeding to another subject,
we would resume a few threads of the argument as a caution to the reader. The grand
object of the mission of Swedenborg, as we believe, was to restore the true
Christian doctrine, and with it the just method of interpreting the
Sacred Word ; and, as tributary to both, to throw a farther light on the
realities of the eternal state. The respectability and attainments of the
individual entitle his report to a fair consideration. It his pretensions are
well-founded, his works are as much addressed to you as to ourselves. His
doctrines are, therefore, first to be examined. But it has heretofore
been the policy of our adversaries to shun a comparison of these with their own
in the field of fair argument, and to carp at his accounts of the future world,
by garbled extracts, designed, when nakedly presented, to decoy or deter the
reader from independent inquiry. If now you would avoid a hasty judgment, restore
these passages to the places from which they were torn—read them in connection
with the explanations which accompany—with the discussions or arguments which
precede; or in view of the principles whose operation they are designed to
exemplify—contemplate the whole in the light of reason, and the Word—and
then if you are willing to receive and to declare the truth, we calmly await
your verdict.
P. S. It was mentioned in the
beginning that this book consisted, for the most part, of objections which had
been urged and answered before. The remark is as true of this as of the
preceding chapters. Mr. Noble, in his “Appeal,” and Mr. Clissold, in his “
Letter to Archbishop Whateley,” have replied to them by anticipation—the former
to many of the specific charges, and both, but particularly the latter, to the
spirit of the whole. What reader would ever have surmised from the naked
argument of the Reviewer, that the explanatory statements of either of those
writers had any bearing on the matters in consideration, or in fact had ever
come under his notice ?
We come now to a 'chapter, short
indeed, but which may be regarded as the gem of the book, seeing that, as a
specimen of ignorance, impudence, and coarse bravado, it excels every other
part of this precious performance.
Among other remarkable particulars
incidentally mentioned in his works, Swedenborg has given two intimations to
the following effect. (1.) That he had been supernaturally informed, that there
was, at the time he wrote, a nation in the interior -of Africa, t® whom
a direct Revelation was made of certain doc trines of the New Church,
especially those which related to the sole Divinity of Christ, the spirituality
of His Word, and the necessity of the Christian life to salvation. (2.) That
the “ ancient Word,” which we have mentioned more than once, was “ reserved”
somewhere in Grand Tartary. And these incidental declarations, on
which not more stress was laid by him than on a hundred others, it is pretended
by this Reviewer, were set up by him as “ tests of the validity of his
claims!” He reproaches us moreover with having made no efforts heretofore—(how
does he know that I)—to verify these assertions—and says without reserve that
our neglect of this pretended duty arises from our disbelief of the statements.
Nor is this all. The valiant Professor (and by no means for the first time)
undertakes to prove a negative, and says that neither the nation nor the
volume ever had a being.
Now we think we are safe in
pronouncing that none other—not even the most stupid of
Swedenborg’s
readers, up to this date, has ever before supposed that he offered these
things as “
tests”
by which the truth of his mission should be tried. He knew tire value of such
evidence too well. If his assertions could be placed beyond a doubt to-morrow,
Dr. P. and those who sympathise with him, would still find ways of eluding
their force ; though they might help to confirm some who already believed on
other and infinitely better grounds—viz: the intrinsic excellence and
Scriptural character of his doctrine. He offers no such test, he enjoins no
such duty on his followers; and we borrow a polite phrase of the Dr.’s, and “
challenge him” to prove it. If he does not, this shameless assertion, on which
he bases his inference, may become a test of the credibility of another than
Swedenborg. We believe the latter was correctly informed as to these
particulars. If, however, he has misstated, time will show. Most certainly
it has not yet. But of these things in order.
The
Dr. has volunteered his counsel to us; we proffer him some advice in turn. Study
a little geography, good friend; and then, if we may judge from your book,
you will have a smattering of everything. Any decent compilation on that
subject will inform you, not only that Ashantee and Yarriba are
on or near the coast of Africa, but that more than two millions of
square miles of its interior are as yet unexplored by European Christians.
We open a recent and most entertaining “Journal of Travels in South Africa,” by
Moffat, an Evangelical missionary, and therefore good authority,
and the first paragraph contains the following sentences : “ The
continent of Africa, though probably the most ancient field of geographical
enterprise, still is, and there is reason to believe will long continue to
be, the least explored portion of the Earth. ... It presents a comparative
blank on the map of the World To this day, its interior
regions continue a mystery to the
white man, a land of darkness, and of terror, to
the most fearless and enterprising traveller. Although in no country has there
been such a sacrifice of men to the enterprise of discovery—of men the most
intelligent and undaunted, of men impelled not by gross cupidity, but by refined
philanthropy; yet notwithstanding such suffering and waste of human life, we
are only acquainted with the fringes of that immense continent, and a
few lineaments at no great distance from its shores.”*
And why is this so ? We answer,
deserts, mountains and morasses on the north; deserts and mountains on the
south; the pestilential climate on the west, and the inveterate jealousy of
strangers, which has ever characterized the inhabitants, not only on the
eastern coast, but all around this region, have heretofore baffled every
attempt to penetrate its mysteries. Monkish missionaries may have succeeded in
reaching it—as Swedenborg avers—but have they ever returned I And if the
Jesuits had learned anything of the fate of their emissaries, is it altogether
certain that those communicative gentlemen would have imparted the news to Dr.
Pond I
But although these approaches from
without have been thus, providentially or otherwise, repelled, the natives
themselves have often brought to the coast reports of a civilized and religious
nation far in the interior, and from time to time these intimations arc being
constantly renewed. For this we could bring
•The
American Quarterly Review, No. X. Art. 1, gives a brief account of the
principal efforts to explore the interior of Africa, from antiquity to that day
(1S29), and says oi that Continent: “ Of a surface extending over nearly
one-fourth of the terrestrial portion of the globe, we scarcely know more
than the outlines, and yet much of what we do know is derived from the very
traditions and records of the most remote antiquity. a score of authorities, some of which
ought to be known to the Reviewer, for they are referred to in various articles
of the New Jerusalem Magazine, of which he professes to have read nineteen
volumes ? But the existence of such
a people is rendered possible or probable by other considerations. The ancient
Ethiopians were noted for their piety and innocence of maimers, so early as the
time of Homer. Traditions of their prowess, and other virtues reached Herodotus
through the Egyptian priests. The Christian religion was sent to them in the
time of the Apostles. At a later day, the neighboring kingdom of Abyssinia
received Christianity and with it the Sacred Word, which she has preserved for
more than a thousand years, and may have imparted to others beyond her borders.
The connection of these Christians through Egypt with Europe has never been
wholly lost, though intercourse was suspended for centuries. It was renewed by
the Portuguese, which led to the visits of the Jesuits. At times during the two
following centuries, the rumor of a remarkable people at a greater distance
would reach the European shores,f and doubtless served to stimulate the zeal
and curiosity of more than one of the numbers who have undertaken the fatal
task of finding them out. Major Harris, in his account of his late embassy to
Shoa, a part of ancient Ethiopia, gives intimation of having heard of a
mysterious nation, or nations still farther in the interior. Until, then, free
access can be had to this immense, though spell-bound territory, and it shall
have been fully explored, how is Prof. Pond to know—unless he has turned clairvoyant
himself—that “ there are no such people in Africa as Swedenborg describes ?”
The other statement is to the
following purport. The ancient Word, which was suited to the genius of the
early ages, was no longer adapted to the generality of mankind, when so great
and radical changes had come over their spirit, and was therefore substituted
by that which we now have. It was consequently ordered by the Divine Providence
that the former should gradually “disappear,” and finally be “lost” in the
other kingdoms of Asia, but it was “ reserved” somewhere in Tartary. This he
learnt “ from certain spirits and angels,” who also informed him that “ it had
been preserved from ancient times,” and that “ they (his informers)
performed their worship according to”— its principles, of course. Does
it follow from this or anything else here written that he wished to induce the
belief that it was the established religion of the empire ? Does this
Lecturer need to be informed that in every country there were formerly literary
treasures kept secret from strangers ? That in oriental countries this
policy has been long observed ? That there was throughout all the east an exoteric
and esoteric worship as well as doctrine ? How long was the Sanscrit
language and literature kept from the profane ? Are there not at this day
numerous Parsees in Persia, who are ostensibly Mahometans, and yet
preserve their sacred books from their oppressors, and conduct their secret
devotions according to the old forms of the Fire-worshipers
The Tartars, in the palmy days of
their history, were proverbially jealous of their state secrets; and
their leaders had comprehensive ideas on the subject of religion which led them
seemingly to adopt and conform to that of the several countries they conquered,
while in fact they had a contempt for their superstitions. And when came the
Professor of Theology at Bangor, into the counsels of the Chinese Emperdrs. or
Prester John’s successors, or Jesuits or Nestorian missionaries, that he
should have been able to ferret out all their secrets, and learn the extent of
their knowledge on this subject 1 “ It was provided that this Word should ‘ disappear'
everywhere, be ‘ lost' in the other countries of Asia, and only
‘reserved’ in Tartary," says Swedenborg. “Then it must be the established
religion of Tartary,” says Dr. P. “ I learned from certain spirits .
. . that it had been preserved there from ancient times,” said
Swedenborg. “ Then those ‘ certain spirits’ must certainly have spoken in the
name of their whole nation, and the existence of such a book, if there at all.
must have been known to all Tartary, and to every man or missionary who ever
visited the country,” says Dr. P. “They declared moreover that they
performed their worship according to the book,” said Swedenborg.
“Exactly,” says Dr. P.— “and all the rest of the nation must have worshiped
after the same model.”— “ ‘ Seek for it China,' you that have the
curiosity, ' peradventure
you may find it there among the Tartars,' ” says Swedenborg. “ Hear you
that, his followers I He commands you to go in search of it. He has
put the truth of his mission on this very test," says Dr. P. A rather
singular “command” this! To seek in one country, among a part
of the population, for a book on which the national religion of another
is founded—and that other as much or more accessible than the first! “ Seek
for it,” says he, it may not be found on the surface. “ Seek for it in China."
It may be too rigidly guarded in Tartary. 1 Seek for it among the Tartars
there”—the upper orders of society—who are more apt to preserve curious
literary relics than the mass of the people, and who might impart to a distant
stranger, who came with the proper motive, what they would withhold from the
unworthy nearer home. But really it is a pity to deprive the Lecturer of the
sad satisfaction he seems to derive from his posing question. As he is
apparently unable to distinguish between a suggestion that if one were to look
for a thing in a particular region, peradventure he might find it, and a
positive command to go on an exploring expedition—we would advise him, if he
wish to prove Swedenborg false, to undertake the enterprise himself. Let him
certainly go to China or to Interior Africa (taking Egypt in the way, for if he
failed to find the book of Jasher in the former country, he may discover it on
the monuments you know), and when he has proved to a demonstration that such a
book is not in the former, or such a nation in the latter, the
modest tone in which he writes may be somewhat elevated.
SWEDENBORG'S DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE, POLYGAMY, CONCUBINAGE,
AND SCORTATION SET
IN ITS TRUE LIGHT.
For several reasons we have postponed
until now, the consideration of the sole remaining class of objections brought
by this Reviewer against the works of our author. We wished first to bring
before the reader those which questioned the soundness of his intellect, and
the accuracy and extent of his attainments, the evidences of his mission, the
justice with which he had treated the character and opinions of other
individuals and sects, the accordance and consistency of his own doctrines with
Reason, with Scripture, and with themselves ; in short, those which related to
the several topics that have successively been brought up, and to furnish such
counter-statements as would enable an impartial mind to judge between him and
his accuser. These being disposed of, such an one is better prepared to
accompany us to the end, if but partially disencumbered of his load of
prejudice. Those which we now propose to notice, are dispersed through several
chapters, and when collected, a general answer may apply to all. And, finally,
they are of a character which renders it proper that they be separately
treated, inasmuch as to some readers it may be more agreeable to have the
opportunity of reading or passing them over at their discretion.
It will be remembered that one of Dr.
Pond’s objections to the system of Swedenborg was, that in his view it tended
to depress, if not to subvert the proper standard of Christian piety.
How utterly baseless the charge is, we hope has been fully shown. . . But a
still more serious imputation was in reserve. “ He is sorry to be
obliged to say that some of them are, not simply indelicate in the
subjects and mode of treatment, but of immoral tendency, those particularly
which relate to Polygamy, Concubinage, and Scortation.” And we meet the charge
with a prompt, unequivocal, and flat denial. We pronounce it moreover a
calumny, and though often repeated and industriously circulated for more than
twenty years, by men who profess to be guided by the highest principle, it is
false nevertheless, as we shall proceed to show, and has no foundation except
in the wilful misinterpretation of determined fault-finders, or the consequent
misapprehension of others who have rashly confided in their statements.
If this question could be freely
canvassed before and submitted to the judgment of intelligent individuals of
the sterner sex—before men alone—men who fear God and love justice—men
who are fully apprised of the letter and spirit of the Divine Law, and of the
liigh standard of obedience and character which is placed before the
Christian, and yet who know the world as it is, and the present frail and
degraded state of human nature-—men who would not be prevented by a false
delicacy or childish timidity from grappling with the difficulties of the
subject—men who understood both the rules of writing and interpretation, and
thence the proper method of collecting an author’s real sentiments, we should
have no fear as to their decision. We should rejoice rather at an opportunity
of repelling a slander which after being secretly whispered from hence to Russia,
and openly propagated by a few reckless defamers whose fabrications have been
dissected and exposed, is now again re-produced by Dr. Pond. But the public
mind has been so long and so widely forestalled by those who before had the
public ear, and who therefore may have calculated on repeating the charges
with impunity, that we have reason to fear that the prejudice may have become
too inveterate to be easily shaken. This, however, but renders it the more
necessary to embrace every occasion to enter our protest against such crying
injustice. This subject, moreover, is one not easily to be treated in a work
addressed to a miscellaneous class of readers of either sex, for we cannot
effectively vindicate ourselves from the most injurious aspersions, without
seeming to trench on delicacy, or to violate some of the conventional rules
which restrict the writer of such a work within certain limits both of thought
and expression. Yet we may not decline to intimate wherein our author has been
misrepresented, and if anything should escape us which is thought to be marked
by too great plainness of speech, the subject itself and the nature of the duty
must plead our apology.
After all, we shall say but little,
and the most of that little has been far better said before. But what we do say
shall be the truth, and easily verified as such. There is the less necessity
for expatiating at length, as every point has been recently and fully examined
by Prof. Bush, in his “ Reply to Dr. Woods,” who urged the same objections,
though in a somewhat modified form, and in a far more courteous and Christian
spirit. Nearly every consideration which we designed to adduce having been
anticipated by that defender of our faith, who has embodied in his Reply all
the passages from Swedenborg on which the charge is usually founded, together
with those by which their sense was intended to be limited, he has thus
furnished the means of coming to a just conclusion, without resort to a purely
partisan statement. To his book, therefore do we confidently refer such as may
desire to make a full examination, but nothing forbids their also resorting to
the best possible source of information, to that work of our author which has
been made the occasion of so much unmerited reproach.
The question may be asked then, “ why
does Swedenborg treat so minutely and particularly of the subject of 1
Conjugal Love, and its various violations,’ when modern maimers had proscribed
everything except mere allusions to such topics, in books designed for general
perusal 1” To which we answer, that He who made the human race made them of
different sexes, established certain relations between them, and prescribed
certain laws for their intercourse, the orderly observance of which
contributes to the happiness of each, and the violation of which is attended
with injury to both. Though these laws of order are laid down in His Word,
their exact purport has been misunderstood by both Catholic and Protestant.
The former has taught that marriage is not “ honorable in all,” nor pure in
itself, and that certain other deviations from chastity were more venial in “
a priest” than such a permanent relation. The latter, though professedly
rejecting both errors, has not fully understood the true nature of marriage,
or the injurious effects of the opposite vices, and has either known no better
mode of opposition, or contented himself with vague and fierce
denunciations of such wanderings, without offering sufficient reasons’ for his
condemnation, or exhibiting the consequences to the spiritual interests
of man in such a light as will deter from their commission.
If such were the true policy, one
might suppose that if there be a corner of the world where such emphatic
denouncings are proclaimed against offenders; such vices would there be
expelled from society. Why then do we see no such result ? Vague abuse, menace,
ex cathedra condemnation, will not suffice in this age. Unless the true
nature of this relation is set forth, and the real danger and effects of its
violation, the “ incredulus odi” will certainly arise and men will assert the
freedom of their intellect, though it may be to their own injury. For the seventh
command does not appear to them more sacred than any other part of the
decalogue, and since the temptations to its breach are generally stronger than
of others, they cannot tell why such offenders should be doomed to peculiar
execration, while they daily witness transgressions of the other laws which
call down on the heads of the perpetrators no such curses, and which in fact
are lightly regarded.
It can hardly be necessary to remind
the reader of the wide-spread, longcontinued, and fatal effects on the morals
of the Church and the world of the Romish error on this subject. They are
apparent to every one who visits a Catholic country. They have not escaped
animadversion in the numerous controversies between them and the other grand
division of Christians. But no where, as we now remember, are these corruptions
more truly and forcibly depicted than in the works bf a distinguished writer
now living But to any man who knows the
world, his daily observation must show that even in Protestant countries much,
very much, is wanting duly to enforce the Divine counsels on this head. The
policy of silence then, of affected horror, of conventional suppression of all
open reference, either spoken or written, to such matters, is either cowardly,
or cruel, or both, while the evils themselves are spreading their ravages and
doing their work of death in secret. Somebody must break through the
trammels of false delicacy, and impart instruction on such subjects. And who so
fit as he who was called to expound the meaning of the entire Scriptures I Is
not this a necessary part of his task, and could he have a voided it without
shunning a duty 1
In the division of labor which has
been instituted for the benefit of society in general, the culture of different
parts of the field of knowledge, has been assigned to different individuals,
whose duty it hence becomes to collect, extend, and preserve the information
which, without such professional function, could neither be obtained nor made
so available to others. In this way also are most persons relieved from the necessity
of studying certain subjects which are distasteful, so long as they are not
personally concerned in the possession of such knowledge.
Far be it from us to object to that
characteristic of our modern manners which banishes certain topics from general
conversation or current literature, and whose stern requisitions have expurgated
the classics, provided us with a Family Shakspearc, and secluded many a work of
Dryden, and Swift, and their compeers, as among the things forbidden to youth.
Yet this is not of
itself an argument of the superior
purity of our age. For this tendency with some has been urged so far as to have
generated the maxim, that “vice itself loses half its evil by losing all its
grossness!” And popular writers have accordingly, under cover of choice
epithet and guarded phrase, given utterance to the most corrupting ideas and
seducing pictures. Notwithstanding these abuses, such matters must be treated
of both in speech and writing, on proper occasions, by proper persons, and with
a proper design. And this is so obvious to common sense, that when treated
thus professionally or scientifically, they occasion neither surprise nor
offence to any well-regulated mind.
Again: libraries somewhat extensive
and miscellaneous are now much more common than formerly. In those of how many
gentlemen may we find not only Encyclcopaedias, which of course embrace the
whole circle of science, but treatises on Anatomy, Physiology, Pathology,
Natural History, rearing domestic animals, Morals, Casuistry, Criminal Law ?
Does any physician dream that he is touching on forbidden themes, or
ministering to a prurient curiosity, by owning most of the works which make up
his collection, or by recommending to heads of families certain compilations
which contain information indispensable to them, though it may be neither
necessary nor proper for others I “ The various ills that flesh is heir to,” in
the present degenerate state of Human Nature, must be made known to their
profession, and remedies sought for them. To conceal them is self-murder. And
this knowledge must be sought by fathers of families, that they may counsel
their children or dependents, and by others that they may know what to
shun. There are other branches of science in a similar relation. The
Farmer, the Criminal Lawyer, the Moralist, the Casuist, the Divine, must often
be conversant with matters which are not agreeable to others. Few works are
more frequently to be met with in the houses of pious Protestants than “
Paley's Moral Philosophy,” and Taylor's “ Holy Living,” and nothing we suppose,
but their enormous bulk has prevented such books of Casuistry as Taylor's “
Ductor Dubitantium,” and Baxter's “ Christian Directory',” from being as common
now as formerly. Yet they all contain chapters which arc unfit and not
intended for indiscriminate perusal, but still useful and necessary. These
books and others belonging to the classes above enumerated, are not furtively
concealed, but are accessible to all whom they may concernand, if perchance, in
glancing over their contents, well-bred females should light on such parts, with
the instinctive purity, tact, and delicacy of the sex. they pass over what was
not intended for their eyes, to other portions which may be safely read by all.
To diminish the chances of such offence, the necessary instruction on such
subjects is collected in books which may be regarded as rather professional
than popular in their character, so that the unwary reader at this day is not
likely to stumble on such passages while perusing more agreeable matter.
It were needless to recall these
well-known facts and truths, but that they seem to be lost sight of by his
opponents, whenever the declarations of Swedenborg arc to be adjudged. For
it is after this plan that he has written relatively to this whole class of
subjects. He has collected in a separate volume all that he had to say thereon
which could be unpleasing to the general reader; there being but little ir
his other works which could properly be brought under this head, and this
treatise, he himself characterised as “ not theological but chiefly moral.”*
The impression sought to be made by
this Reviewer is, that the book is written in a strain of rhapsodical passion
which would be more becoming in an ardent youth under a tropic sun than in a
grave theologian, whose temperament was formed under a northern sky, and had
beens till further subdued by the frosts of seventy winters. This is the
reverse of the truth. The spirit which pervades it throughout is that of the
calm, self-poised Christian Philosopher, who contemplates this, as he would
any other subject, from a lofty intellectual sphere. Nor is there the
slightest trace of personal feeling or interest, farther than an evident
desire in this, as in all his writings, to place correct principles in a clear
light, and to contrast them with the opposite and most prevalent errors. This
is manifestly true of the entire thread of his own argument, which is
drawn out with logical precision, and disposed in his usual orderly method.
This book, however, like some of the others, contains certain “ memorable relations,”
in which, as we suppose, he has given a faithful account of “ things seen and
heard.” In reporting the acts and opinions of others, he has attributed to some
of the interlocutors sentiments and declarations marked by more of that warmth
and directness of allusion whieh are thought by some to be inseparable from
such themes, but of whieh we find nothing in his own lucubrations, unless the
simple statement of a fact, or annunciation of a principle, shall be taken as
sufficient ground for the charge, and it is from these that Dr. P.’s quotations
have been chiefly taken. The style of the treatise is ehaste throughout, the
phraseology being generally selected with a happy tact for insinuating rather
than broadly expressing the ideas whieh he wishes to convey; though this
purpose has been sometimes defeated by his translators, who, from an honest
though excessive desire to be literal, have spoken more plainly than the
original. After all, of the whole twenty thousand pages written by
Swedenborg on theological subjects, there are not twenty which any one
need fear to read, and these are in a work written for the use of man.
Of these, also, we say “ evil to him who evil thinksfor if herein the author
has written naturally, or “ scientifically,” or like “ a physiologist,” it is
because morals are not something etherial or Utopian, but praetieal. If we wish
to reform the vicious, we must “take them as they are,” and not forget that, as
the spirit is connected with the body, so the science of morals is based
on physiology, and in practise cannot be separated from it.
And this reminds us that Evangelical
ministers have not always cherished such an affectation of decorum as at
present. There is a ceremony exacted of virtuous matrons in the established
Church of England; the form of which is laid down in her prayer book and has
not been expunged by the Episcopal Church of America—of which we say nothing,
except that a needless publicity is given to grateful feelings which were
better confined to a circle of relatives or friends at home. But who has not
heard of the “Cutty Stool” whieh has figured so largely in the history of the
Church of Scotland ? And who was it but members of the Evangelical party that
some years ago got up in the city
See his sixth Letter to Dr. Beyer. of New York, the
world-renowned Magdalen Report! and afterwards, as we learn, under the
management of a consistory of matrons, headed by some of their clergy,
published a periodical on the subject of “ Moral Reform,” whereby persons,
previously innocent and ignorant, were more familiarized with scenes of vice,
than by all the French novels of the day * And yet, prudish, immaculate,
fastidious Dr. Pond is now scandalised at a few pages written by a
sage-moralist, from a religious motive, in a treatise directed to men!
- Nor is this all. In his zeal
for condemning us, he has also (unwittingly we hope) cast a reproach upon
the Word of God! It is generally known, that the Bible itself contains
whole chapters and parts of many others which should not be publicly read—some
of them, perhaps, not at all by young persons—and that these are so numerous
that Infidels have not scrupled to declare that “ the Bible is the most immoral
book in the world.” To be consistent, Dr. P. should expunge these from liis
copy of the Word, or else succumb to this, which is one of the principal
arguments of the Romanists for withholding the Scriptures from the laity. The
whole Bible Society; nay, all Protestant Christendom must have committed a grievous
sin in putting them into the hands of children—if he be right. We might
subjoin a copions list of passages which contain narratives, or illustrations,
or references, or allusions, or precepts, or warnings—many of which would fare
badly with the scrupulous Puritans, if they appeared in any other work, however
pure and benevolent, or austere the motive with which they were written. But
we will not do it. We will not imitate the example of Dr. Pond, who has not
only drawn such things from their professional depositories (so to
speak), and needlessly intruded them before the public; but has picked, and
culled, and tom passages from their context, and brought things together which
were originally separate, in order to make the total impression as false and as
unfavorable as possible. Vindications of the Scripture for appearing in such a
style, elaborate and able, we know have long since been made. But the principle
of the defence, if sufficient there, is equally applicable to the works of our
author, who has done but little more than collect and expand the principles
which were dispersed through the Scriptures, or embody ideas which may now be
found floating through many minds ; and which, when occasion requires, are
freely and properly discussed in the sanctuary of the domicil, or the
confidence of private friendship.
Thus much as to the question of delicacy;
and now it may be asked, what is the particular character of the treatise,
which has been the object of such repeated and ferocious attacks * Swedenborg having
set aside the vulgar error which asserts the existence of angels, created such,
taught that the final cause of the creation of the earth, was, that it might
become “ the perpetual seminary of heaven-' and marriage or the union of
one man with one woman—which should also be an union of minds as well as
bodies—is the only legitimate source of offspring to be trained up for the
enjoyments of the spirit-world. Such was the original institution ordained and
blessed by God;. and such an union, if between congenial minds—the distinction
of sex being rooted in the spirit itself—he declares, is continued in the other
life, in accordance with the annunciation of our Lord that “ they twain shall
be one flesh," and that what “ God hath joined together man shall not
put asunder.” Such a marriage, he says,
is illustrated by a thousand external phenomena, as well as by the union of the
will and understanding, and thence of goodness and truth, in the regenerate
man. And this but a derivation from a similar union of love and wisdom in the
Lord himself, who, in his holy Word has selected this relation, as the
especial symbol of that which exists between himself and his churchf From
these and other considerations, such as that marriage is the only proper origin
of families, and of the resulting domestic and social relations, and remotely
of government itself, which was originally paternal in its character;
and that, when viewed in this exalted sense, it can only exist with those who
either are Christians, or are in a capacity to become such; he has deduced the
farther inference that it is spiritual, holy, pure, and clean, and the very
depository of the Christian Religion—which last pretension seems extravagant,
if not shocking, to Dr. Pond.
Now the Dr. cannot but know, that
there are thousands, and in Christian countries, too, who, far from cherishing
this just and refined idea of such a connexion, even include in their
conception of its character, something gross and impure and external, and who
look upon woman not as the equal and companion of man, but rather as the
manager of his household, and the minister of his appetites, though they may
thereby involve in the degradation the virtuous mothers who bore them or their
own affectionate and constant consorts. It was to correct these and the like
pernicious errors, to bannish for ever from Christian minds such unworthy
sentiments, to restore forgotten truths by separating them from the
counterfeits with which they had been mingled, that this volume was written.
And if it be a crime to seek to elevate and dignify the general estimate of a
virtuous love of the sex, and of the marriage union as its result, what a
wickedness as well as folly was chivalry—what worse than nonsense the entire
series of the Drama and Moral fiction, and much of the Poetry of modern
times—and how naughty it was in old Bishop Taylor, to preach such a sermon as
that on “The Marriage Ring.” ft was not however by labored efforts of
imagination that Swedenborg sought to adorn his theme, nor yet by eloquence to
win the feelings while the judgment Avas unconvinced; but by the presentation
of plain truth, or by forcible reasoning clothed in his usual didactic and
simple style, to show that this subject was one which “ came home to the
business and bosoms of men.”
To deepen the impression, and if
possible to confirm his instructions, it was also necessary to present the
reverse of the picture. The temporary or irregular connexions which are the
very opposite of that instituted by God, must pass in review. Nor like so
many other moralists has he shunned this duty, however unpleasant, but having
brought to the divine standard, and discriminated the relative degrees of
enormity which mark their several offences, he has de-
nounced them all,
and has declared from actual observation the terrible retributions which await
the robber of virgin purity, the roaming libertine, the violator of chastity,
the seducer of innocence, and above all the fiend-like adulterer, who, if a
deliberate offender, not only destroys the peace of families, but the
possibility of his own salvation. And we hesitate not to say that, if anything
could avail to confirm the virtuous in their purity—if anything could lure
the dog from his vomit, or deter from such perilous courses, it must be the
presentation of motives drawn from heaven, and earth, and hell, in these
contrasted pictures of the happiness that attends the former, and the
inevitable horrors which overtake the latter.
Thus far, we suppose it would be
difficult for the most scrupulous to find anything defective here on the score
of morality. What then are the dogmas that have given occasion to a charge so
serious 1 Those to which this Reviewer has taken special exception, may
be reduced to three : And first, Swedenborg has said that “ polygamy is not sin
with those whose religion sanctions it, or with those who are in ignorance
concerning the Lord. Consequently, it was no sin among the Israelites of old ;
nor with the Mahometans and heathens of the present day.” Now we should really
suppose that this is but little more than the utterance of a truism, or so
direct an inference from Scripture as at once to meet the approbation of every
just and well-informed mind. What is sin but the neglect of human duty, or the
violation of known laws ? “"This is the condemnation, that light
has come into the world,” &c. “ If ye were blind ye should have no
sin.” “ If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin.”* Now
Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon indulged in this liberty, nor was it
forbidden to the nation by Moses. Mahomet practised the same license himself,
and authorized it in his followers. So that it was permitted by the religion
and civil laws of either nation, and we do not learn that they received farther
light from any other source. How then were either Jews or Alahometans to know
that it was a sin ?
An evil it undoubtedly was,
permitted by Divine Providence to prevent greater. It forbade their rising
higher in the scale of regeneration. It found them merely natural men and kept
them so—but it also prevented their sinking lower; and this being conceded to
them on account of the hardness of their hearts, they could be instrumental in
effecting other purposes of the Deity* particularly that of extirpating
idolatry among the Oriental nations.
No! Swedenborg does not—like the
Westminster Confession of Faith—send all Mahometans and Pagans to hell merely
for doing what their religion permits. And we must own that we do not see how
this conclusion, as just as humane, tends to immorality. If they live up to the
light they have, why should they not be admitted to a sort of happiness
hereafter ? Accordingly we learn that Mahometans have a heaven, divided
into two regions. Into their higher heaven, none are admitted but those who
renounce polygamy—whereas in the lower are found others who still live as they
were taught was allowable in the natural world. In a memorable relation
Swedenborg has reported an interview with an inhabitant of this region, who, as
he had carried thither the disposition and sentiments formed on earth, gave
vent to and defended certain Turkish ideas as to the worth and duty of woman.
Swedenborg represents himself as expostulating with the polygamist, and
severely rebuking him for his grossness. And these opinions, which are
recorded for our reprobation, are quoted by just Dr. P. as if they were
Swedenborg's own.’ He is moreover offended that such a spirit should be
assigned to heaven. But heaven is not a place, simple admission into
which is also a passport to happiness; and there are more heavens than one.
Their lower heaven, though dignified with that generic name, from the
account given of it, would probably be a hell
to a Christian. And yet the mercy of the Lord permits even such unclean
wretches to enjoy the happiness of which they are capable; but it is such as
renders it necessary for them to be totally separated from. Christians in the
other life.
But again we ask : Has not Dr. P. in
his haste to condemn Swedenborg, involved other persons whose faith accords
more nearly with his own ? Has he forgotten that Luther, Melancthon, Bucer,
and others of the only reformers, hearkened to the urgent representations of
Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, whom they feared to alienate from the cause of
Reformation, and permitted him to take a second wife while his first was
still living? and lias not the pernicious precedent then set, though an
abomination to be detested by all Christians, been followed by German
Protestant Princes ever since in what they profanely call “marriages with the
left hand ?’’ Nay, more, is it not true that American Evangelical missionaries
in the East, recently admitted a Mahometan convert to Christian communion
without requiring him to dismiss one of two wives which he had before ?
Such an outrage on all proper Christian feeling could not be perpetrated
without both question and remonstrance. The propriety of the step was
accordingly discussed in a Missionary Convention held, as it happened, at
Bangor! under Dr. P.’s own nose. And what was the result? A high officer
of the Board of Missions reports it as follows:—After a full consideration of
the subject the Missionaries came to the conclusion "that the
sinfulness of polygamy was not so clearly taught in the New Testament as to
make it a test of exclusion ?” When this licentious judgment was delivered,
where then were the small thunders of the minor Vatican of the Theological
Seminary at Bangor? Not so much as a word of dissent or reclamation have we
heard from that quarter ?
But widely as it has diverged from
correct principle on this subject and degrading as has been its practice is
there nothing redeeming in Mahometanism ? For otherwise, the philosophical
student of History may find much to commend in its character and effects on
the nations subjected to its sway. And the superiority of Christianity may be
safely maintained without consigning all the professors of the former to
inevitable damnation. While the contest between the Crescent and the Cross was
at its height, and the result seemed doubtful to human ken, it was scarcely to
be expected that the Christian would accord any merit to the rival faith. But
the ultimate issue may now be safely predicted, and the Christian can afford to
be just. Swedenborg, so far as wc know, was the first among recent writers to
set this subject in a proper point of view Since his day there have not been wanting
others sufficiently learned and liberal to follow his example,—and his
judgment bids fair at no distant day, to become the settled opinion of the
public.
Take as a specimen the following from
Mr. Sharon Turner. “No oue who thinks calmly and intelligently on the subject,
can imagine that such a mighty event as the establishment, and diffusion, and
continuance of the Islam faith, can have occurred without the knowledge and
permission of the divine Ruler of us all. . . . Wherever Mohammedanism has
spread, it has always acted to the same end. It has always been the
uncompromising antagonist of polytheism and idolatry, and has invariably driven
these out of the world wherever it has predominated.”—(Sacred History of the
World, vol. 2, p. 405.)
To the same effect Speaks the late Dr.
Arnold. “ Greek cultivation and Ro- Roinan polity prepared men for
Christianity, as Mahometanism can bear witness, for the East when it abandoned
Greece and Rome could only re-produce Judaism. Mahometanism, six hundred years
after Christ, justifies the wisdom of God in Judaism: proving that the eastern
man could bear nothing more perfect.”—(Life 496—see also App. F.)
(2.) We come now to the second and
third charges; but that our defence may be more brief and intelligible, we will
invert the order of their consideration.
The treatise of Swedenborg to which we
have so frequently referred, is entitled “ The Delights of Wisdom concerning
Conjugialf Love, after which follow the pleasures of Insanity concerning
Scortary Love.” In the first and much the larger part are laid down the laws of
marriage, and the duties which grow out of that relation. Among many other
propositions, all of the same tendency, are the following. “The mere love of
the sex is of the natural or external man, and is common to all animals, but
the conjugial principle is of the internal or spiritual man, and at that day it
was so rare, it was scarcely known that it was, far less what it was.
Nevertheless, viewed from its origin and correspondence, it is spiritual, holy,
pure and clean, and none can ever come into it but those who either are
Christians, or in a capacity to become such.” Chastity is not mere
abstinence, from whatever cause arising, whether youth, or inability, or
selfish prudence, or a fanatical vow of celibacy—but is predicated solely of
marriage, and of the marriage of one husband with one wife. Christian
marriage then alone is chaste, and its chastity consists in “a total
renunciation of whoredoms from principle of religion:- For such “do shun
all extra-conju- gial loves as they would the loss vf the soul and the lakes of
hell.”X There can then be no doubt as to the duty of a Christian in
his relations to the other sex, as expoimded by Swedenborg.
But unhappily all are not Christians
even in Christian countries. The divine counsels are explicit; their purport
and tendency not to be mistaken. That which enjoins chastity is as clear as the
rest, and yet it is violated in various modes. Most true, they are all
denounced by the moralist and the divine, and by none more emphatically than by
Swedenborg himself. “ Scor- tatorylove"—a general term for aZZ such irregularities—“
is opposite to conjugial love,”*—as opposite as the natural man is to
the spiritual,! or as the connexion of the evil and the false is to the
marriage of goodness and truth. {—nay, as opposite as Hell is to Heaven.^
The uncleanness of hell arises herefrom its sphere ascends from hell :fl
its pleasures are those of insanity .•** it tends to bestialise the man
more and more in proportion to its indulgence ;”ft what more could he have said
?
Withall this he could not be blind to
the fact that the sacred precepts were constantly transgressed in various
forms, and that much of the misery of society arose from such disorders. In
searching however for the causes of this prevailing delinquency, it could not
escape his observation that the frequency of its occurrence did not always
arise (as in some other species of vice) from a disposition to contemn the
divine authority or wantonly to brave the vengeance of heaven; but that it was
often the result of an unfavorable organization inherited from a long line of perverted
ancestry, and such predisposition aggravated by untoward circumstances arising
from a vicious constitution of society. The temptations of some to err
in this respect, are stronger than of others; as sinful passions are indulged,
they grow in strength. Similar propensities are transmitted to offspring; and
if these are unrestrained, with each succeeding generation the task of
self-government becomes more and more difficult. Without doubt it is true that
no sane man ever inherits a temperament which compels him to sin;
and some are so happily bom or wisely nurtured that their duty in this respect
is performed with comparative ease. There are again men of iron will who can
overcome by flight or resistance the severest trials. But when all is said and
the most favorable view taken, there still remains a large class of men who do
not exercise the proper self-control.
A feeling implanted by Deity for wise
purposes is not sinful in itself, nor is its indulgence forbidden within the
limitsand upon the condition prescribed by Him. That one condition is marriage.
But marriage, though itmay bean object within the wish and intention, cannot be
compassed at will by every individual. It is the result of an engagement
between two, -and consent may be wanting. If this be obtained, other
obstacles may prevent. It should not be entered on without the means or
prospect of maintaining a family. In countries already fully peopled, with
settled governments, this, with the majority, is a work of time. Even under
these trying circumstances the Christian will learn to possess his soul in
patience: rely on the promise that he shall not be tempted beyond his ability
to endure, and await his reward in another life. But again we say, all are not
Christians, and will not control themselves. Many are not restrained by
religious principle. The current of thought with them has run parallel with
that of feeling, until they have brought themselves into a condition in which
the demands of appetite are importunate and incessant. It is of such,
particularly the young, who are not in a condition to marry, that
Swedenborg has said, “ That with
some the love of the sex cannot without damage be totally
restrained from going forth into indulgence.” And what is this but the
repetition of a fact which is known to every experienced physician, to
clergymen, to magistrates, to statesmen, to men of the world, throughout
Christendom,—or, in the words of Swedenborg, a fact which “reason sees and
experience teaches I” And is he to be blamed for the simple recognition of a
truth notorious as it is humiliating ? Dr. Pond may wink hard, or, like the
wise bird, bnry his head in the sand, but is it not so? As an evidence
that it is not only recognised, but acted on by others. Swedenborg states the
farther fact, “that therefore in populous cities bagnios are
tolerated, . . . tolerated by kings, magistrates, and thence by judges,
inquisitors, and by the people, at London, Amsterdam, Paris, Vienna,
Venice, Naples, and also at Rome, besides in many other places," —and
for the reason among others that the virtuous portion of female society would
not be safe from snares or violence without some such safety-valve for the
escape of the menacing principle.
Such then is the present frail and
imperfect state of human nature. Society is invaded by wild beasts which cannot
be tamed immediately. Insanity is a thing of degrees and may be periodical in
its attacks. We do not say that it is physically impossible for such men
to be virtuous, but we presume Dr. P. has heard of the famous distinction
between “natural and moral inability,” which to a certain extent is true. Such
men then are morally unable to resist temptation of this sort. They cannot
because they will not.f
What now is to be done I The question
is one which cannot be evaded; and is worthy of being brought before a tribunal
in which the strictest justice is tempered by the highest wisdom and
moderation. The maxim “summum jus, summa injuria,” if ever applicable in cases
of practical morals, would seem to obtain here. Indiscriminately to despatch
all such offenders to perdition, in the summary style of some theologians,
while of the former it might make reckless rebels, driving them to all manner
of excess, might relieve the casuists of one difficulty by appearing to
maintain the honor of the divine law; but, on the other hand, it would go far
to prove that the benevolent purpose of the Deity in the creation of man had
been thus far defeated. The individual in question cannot at once ascend to the
heights of virtue and conquer his thoughts and feelings. He cannot as yet
obtain his own consent to refrain from all indulgence. The modes of
transgression are various; some much more serious than others. What then remains
for the person who wishes to keep on terms at all with his conscience, but that
he select that course which is least offensive to the public, and least
injurious to himself and others,—in a word, that in a choice of evils he
adopt the least ? Now, of these several departures from virtue, in the
judgment of all reasonable men, the least aggravated is fornication. When
therefore Swedenborg pronounces it better that those who will degrade
themselves and stain their souls to some extent, should avoid all injury to
maidenly purity or matronly virtue—every thing like seduction or adultery or
violence (with none of which he holds any compromise), and without roaming at
large, content themselves with one, preferring the state of marriage all the
time, and only betaking themselves to this as a “ refuge and an asylum"
in the present necessity,—in such a question of casuistry, we ask, Is
not his judgment re-echoed by the common sense of the whole Christian world ?
This then is the head and front, the
whole extent, of his offence. He has discriminated where others have
judged in the gross, or shunned the question altogether; and therefore
has been denounced as the patron of immorality by men who would give the
veteran sinner in the last hour of life, a passport to happiness if he
but says he repents and believes a set of propositions which, in
the view of thousands who are diligent students of God’s word, and endeavor to
walk by its light, contradict the clearest dictates of reason and the plainest
declarations of Holy Writ.
But that there might be no pretext for
misunderstanding him, he has been careful to guard against it by the following
cautionary explanations. “There are degrees of the qualities of evil, as there
are degrees of the qualities of good; wherefore every evil is lighter, and more
grievous, as every good is better and more excellent. The case is similar with
fornication, which, because it is lust, and the lust of the natural man not
yet purified, is an evil ; but
because every man is capable of being purified, therefore, as far as he
approaches a purified state, so far that evil becomes lighter, for so far it is
wiped away.” Again, “ The love of
pellicacy is unchaste, unnatural, and external; and (twice
repeated) it is better that the fountain of ability be reserved for a
wife.” And, finally, as if to prevent even malignity itself from perverting his
meaning, he closes with the protest “ that
these things are not said to those who are able to restrain the heat
of lust, nor to those who are able to enter into marriage immediately upon
their being mature." f
These are the words. You, Dr. Pond,
have read them. Others, who saw only the garbled quotation, might mistake, but
more than one of the books included in your famous catalogue, has adduced the
qualifying passages which it suited your purpose to omit. Suppose, now, you
should stand in a court of justice, and being required on your corporal oath,
by the judge—who happened with the majority of the auditors to be ignorant of
this book—justly to declare its spirit, scope, and tendency, and that you
should give such an account of the same as that presented in your volume.
Suppose also that thereupon another witness should rise : supply your
omissions, correct your misrepresentations, and appeal to volume and paragraph
in confinnation of his statements;— where would you stand next ? Think
you that you would ever be permitted to testify in a court of justice again '?
(3.) There are two kinds of divorce
known to the civil laws of Christian countries: the one “from the bonds of
marriage,”—the other “from bed and boardor, as Swedenborg expresses it, “
separation from the bed and house.” The only legitimate ground for the first,
is that mentioned by our Lord in Matt, xix. 9—infidelity on the part of the
wife : in which case, either party when divorced is at liberty to marry again.
Separation from the bed and the house
is also allowed by the same laws, and for many reasons—all of which may be
included in either a vitiated state of the mind or body. Of these Swedenborg
has enumerated some fifty or more in the aggregate, and though the laws
under which he has lived all his life, provide the same remedy for these and
many more of like weight, yet Dr. P. takes occasion to urge this also as a
sanctioning of immorality by the former. If there were five hundred and all
could justly be brought within the rule, they would be alike operative. Of
those which relate to the mind, every one mentioned by him tends to
frustrate the very ends of marriage, such as an original want or utter
privation of intellect, intolerable temper, an unbridled tongue, incorrigible
imprudence, shameless neglect of parental and household duties and the minor
morals in general—such, in short, as renders it impossible for a man of any
sensibility to continue that intimacy and co-operation which should subsist
between husband and wife in Christian marriage. Of the vitiated states of the
body mentioned by him, all are included under the general head of incurable
and contagious disease. There cannot be two opinions as to the privilege of
withdrawal to that extent, where mind, body, or estate—it may be, all
together—are menaced with ruin. And this privilege is reciprocal. It enures to
the wife if the husband is in a similar condition iu any of these respects.
The causes of such separation are
either legitimate or just. They are legitimate” when the matter is brought
before a judicial tribunal, and separation granted by legal authority. But
there are cases in which the party under duress cannot consent to have his
private griefs exposed to the world, and made the subject of coarse comment and
public scandal. The facts are undoubted—known to himself and family, or to
confidential friends. There can be no doubt as to the issue, if brought before
a judge. But the lady may be innocently suffering under calamity—or, if she be
culpable, an avowed separation from the house may be injurious to one or both,
or to their offspring as regards the social position or prospects. He consents,
therefore, to remain under the same roof, but in a different apartment. These
are “just causes of separation while the wife is retained at home.” The
case is adjudged “by the man alone,” according to just principles applied to
the facts, without resorting to a public tribunal, and were their
situations reversed, “ the woman alone,'’’ would be entitled to the same
privilege, though such a case was not under Swedenborg’s consideration
while he was treating of the others.
The inquiry now is, what is permissible
in such case. The man is allowed neither by divine nor human law’s to take
another wife. He cannot, however, forget that he is a man. We are told that
Sarah presented her handmaid of old to Abraham as a partner of his bed, and
that Leah and Rachel were equally considerate of Jacob, when as yet there was
no such apparent necessity. It is neither expected nor required that ladies
should be equally complaisant at this day. Luther, Melancthon, and other
reformers, in defiance of the divine law, permitted the Landgrave of Hesse
under such pressure to espouse a second consort while the first was yet living.
Evangelical Missionaries sanction the retention of his two wives by a
Mohammedan convert. Thousands in Christian countries with such a pretext,
plunge into adultery without restraint, or remorse. But what says Swedenborg ?
“ He who from an early age has loved,
has wished and asked of the Lord a legitimate and lovely connexion with one of the sex, shuns and abominates the
impulses of a wandering lust." “ So
far as any one shuns adulteries of every kind as sins, so far he loves
chastity. By adultery, in the decalogue, in a natural sense is meant not only
whoredom, but also all obscene acts, all wanton discourse, and all filthy,
unclean thoughts.”! “ The chastity of Christian marriage consists in the total
renunciation of whoredom from a principle of religion.”! Such partners “ shun
all extra-conjugial loves as they would the loss of the soul and the lakes
ofhell.”|| The natural man is the seat of all such evils. All such loves are
natural,§ and the mere love of the sex can not become spiritual until it
becomes conjugial.The spiritual man, who is influenced by the love of the
neighbor, will suppress a desire which if gratified must be attended by a
similar offence on the part of another, and thus imperil her salvation
also. The Christian then must and can and will submit to the privation without
repining at the allotment of Providence. He has the divine promise which cannot
fail, that his temptation shall not be greater than his strength, and that he
shall be upheld by divine power in this as in all other cases.
He who in such circumstances cannot
walk in the narrow path of purity may be assured that he is yet a natural man,
and to a greater or less extent under the dominion of the powers of evil. Nor
is conscience in him so sensitive as that of the other. He judges of the
propriety of actions by a lower standard. And he is weaker for the very reason that his
mind is not fortified by the protecting influence of divine truth, nor
by making it the guide of his every action, has he placed himself under the
guardian care of Almighty power. It is better that he also learn to
subdue his will and avoid all these “pleasures of insanity .”ff But if he cannot
contain,—and that there are such cases is a fact recognised by Paul,!!
and observable at this day—if he is the slave of sense generally aud, in this
respect, of habit, then, inasmuch as he is denied a resort to that
preventive of sin which Paul himself prescribed to his Christian converts,||
|| his situation is manifestly similar to that of the unmarried man which has
been already considered. It is perhaps one of greater hardship, for the former
can see no termination to his trials during the life-time of his consort,
whereas the latter may be and often is sustained by the hope of marriage at a
future day. Such an one then who feels that indulgence is to him in some sort a
necessity, has some apology or exculpation—for him a valid excuse (sontica
causa)^ for taking a substitute, provided there be but one and she
neither a virgin nor married woman, and the wife be not resorted to at the same
time. For the seducer is a robber : the violator of innocence is a pirate :f heaven
is closed to the wilful adulterer, who takes pleasure in his sin and shuts
his eyes to its enormity. The sacred truths he has learned will be perverted or
obliterated, and his capacity for their farther perception be ultimately
destroyed.} That which is above laid down is the most mitigated form of the
necessary evil.g If resorted to from this motive alone—if he sincerely-prefers
marriage, || the rights of which under his circumstances are denied him, he may
retain the hope of reformation and the power of ultimately becoming chaste in
all his conduct. It will certainly prevent his sinking lower—-for there is
many a lower deep, and some from which there is no possibility of emerging.
But here also there must be no forged
pretext—no paltering with conscience.^ He must be entirely satisfied after the
most rigid self-examination that he possesses not the power of self-denial. The
alienation or perversion of mind or temper in his consort, must be hopeless, or
her bodily affliction incurable and dangerous, for transient affections of
either kind furnish no excuse. His motives also rest between him and the
searcher of all hearts. Man cannot judge them. If he has attempted to
deceive others or has actually deceived himself, the imputations
hereafter will be according to his real purpose and he takes the ambiguous step at his own
peril.
Such, we assure our readers, is the
'plain intent and meaning of Swedenborg’s teachings on the subject. And is
there a man not stricken with judicial blindness, who cannot see the difference
between this construction and that given by Dr. P.? It is moreover the only
fair construction of his words, and the only one which was ever put on them by
his followers. We have said before, that “having much to write he was the most
methodical of writers. A position once laid down, he did not think it necessary
to repeat it wherever it was applicable, but takes it for granted that the
reader who is willing to weigh his argument impartially will bear it in mind.’’
Some of the principles necessary to a proper understanding of his conclusions
are dispersed through the volume, and might not be apparent at first to a
careless perusal. A sufficient number of these we hope are now collected to
put our readers in possession of his argument on this case of conscience—the
discussion of which has been shunned by Protestant divines in general. We ask
now of him who has heard it stated nakedly and without qualification that “
Swedenborg recommends! the keeping of a mistress and a concubine,” whether there
could well be a falser charge under the semblance of truth? Does he justify
it in the abstract? Does he anything more than tolerate in the morally
diseased a less departure ’ from rectitude than was permitted by Divine
authority to the Israelites of old “ for the hardness of their hearts ?”ff
Ought not then this plain tale to put
down this prevaricating witness who has taken up an unjust reproach against his
neighbor.}} “ Time was, when the brains wore out, the man would die,” but this
calumny seems to be endowed with an ever renewed freshness. It is not enough that
the Ecclesiastical bodies of the New Church should have from time to time
disclaimed the injurious interpretation, or that her accredited organs should
on all suitable occasions deny its justice and set the subject in its true
light, or that every individual member of the Church should repel the
imputation with scorn;— ever and anon conies some resurrectionist of slander to
take up the carcass from the ditch to which it had been consigned again to
galvanize it into life.
DR. POND’S ESTIMATE OF SWEDENBORG, AND VARIOUS
MINOR CAVILS, CONSIDERED.
Having passed in review the entire
series of objections—such as they are— to the doctrines and claims of
Swedenborg, adduced by this redoubtable champion, we come, finally, to consider
the manner in which he has summed up this estimate of our author’s character,
and of the state of mind in which he wrote his Theological works.
After looking back with serene
complacence on what he flatters himself he has done in the way of demolishing
the former; with a most remarkable modesty, he thinks the only question
which requires to be considered before coming to a conclusion on the other
grave matter, is, “ was he a deluded fanatic, or a wilful and wicked impostor
?” and with a philanthropy and charity, equally extraordinary, he desires and
thinks it possible to avoid the latter alternative. “ He regards him as, in the
main, honest in his pretensions, and has no doubt that he really thought
he enjoyed that kind of intercourse with angels and spirits of which he speaks.
There is an artlessness, a simplicity, a sincerity about him, a disregard of
personal reputation and influence ; a seeming confidence in the truth of his
disclosures which an impostor could not well assume.” Nor is this all.—“ He
was a laborious student in his way—a calm, quiet and benevolent man. He was as
capable of reasoning on most subjects as ever he was, and retained the vigor of
his faculties to old age, in a remarkable degree.” There remains then for his
comprehensive logic but the one supposition. Swedenborg, was a monomaniac, or
a natural somnambulist, reasonable on other subjects, but deranged, inasmuch
as “ he was in a state in which he seemed to himself to look iu upon the other
world, to behold around him spirits and angels, and to have intercourse and
conversation with them— a state not constant nor optional but usual.” Kind
Doctor, we kiss your hand. Such benevolence deserves our cordial thanks. Anti,
strange to say, we are obliged to you both for your good opinion, and for the
want of it. We will not ask, because you could not afford to grant,
more.
A certain character in the Book of
Job, is reported to have said, “ all that a man hath will he give for his
life.” Whether this be true or not, there can be little doubt that there is many
an Evangelical Doctor, who will sacrifice much of his own and all that belongs
to another, for his faith. Yes, before he will condescend to presume it possible
that he may be mistaken as to a jot of his creed, he would
impeach the character or the intellect of any or all who called it in question.
It would have been rather too adventurous to assert in the face “of all
history,” that this “ gentleman, moral, religious and sincere,” could have
profanely assumed to bring revelations from God, while he was all the time
wearing the mask of the hypocrite. But if his purpose were honest, it would
seem that such pretensions put forth by such a man, are worthy of impartial examination.
Some other expedient must be found for dispensing inquirers from a task which might
lead to farther and irksome duties. And the Doctor has fallen on that which,
though neither novel nor ingenious, is the only one left. This virtuous and
pious man has assailed what we choose to call the Evangelical faith, therefore
he must have been mad. But you grant that he was learned and laborious,
and retained the vigor of his faculties to old age. “Oh yes, he was as rational
as ever on all subjects except one or two : but on those which pertained to his
revelations, his mind was disordered; it had become unbalanced. There can be
no reasonable doubt of it."
Be it so then, for the moment. We must
still inform you that you have taken scarcely a step towards the accomplishment
of your object. Does this exempt you from the duty of examining his works on
their own merits 1 What if they had all been published anonymously,
as most of them were ? But though the author is known, it behoves you none the
less to examine a system which has been embraced by many intelligent minds,
and to demonstrate its jjtllacy and danger. If you insist that you have
done this, there remains an alternative for us. We are compelled to
question either your motive or fitness for the task. We must either pity the
obtuseness which has failed to perceive it both as a whole and in its parts, or
we must contemn the perverseness which has misrepresented it throughout.
Again: conceding for argument’s sake
that you could prove Swedenborg to be insane “on this particular point,” in
what category shall we place you? What are we to think of yon and your
fellow-laborers in the same work • who after all your prodigious preparation
and painstaking have made such wretched failures ? What, a mad man dispel the
thick clouds of mystery which had hung over the most important subjects of
human thought, and which the entire priesthood of all religions had failed to
pierce before ! A madman erect a fabric on which Doctors of Divinity and
Professors of Theology, have turned their batteries without being able so much
as “ to disturb the cement ” which unites its walls! If Folly has
succeeded in rearing such a fortress, what are we to think of the pretended
wisdom, which has not yet overthrown it 1
But to the proofs, or what are offered
as such.
(1.) The first is a rumor unfavorable
to the state of his health; the probable state of his mind, and subject of his
studies, just before his supposed illumination; and the accounts given by
himself and others of that remarkable event. (2.) He sometimes speaks of
sensations in the head, “in a way to indicate disorder there.” (3.) He
acknowledged himself that he was several times in a state analogous to somnambulism.
(4.) His private habits during the last thirty years of his life were “
strange.” True, they were just such as we might have anticipated, if he really exercised
the power and discharged the function to which he pretended, and he was
incapable of wilful imposition, but they were different from those of other
people, then and now, and therefore they “ clearly indicate derangement.” (5.)
Mauy of his contemporaries thought him “ a mentally disordered man.” (6.)
Other persons, evidently diseased in body and disordered in mind, such as
Nicolai and the Seeress of Prevorst, have seen spirits, therefore Swedenborg
was insane. These are the principal, and with some of less moment to which we
shall also attend, make up the entire evidence to sustain the charge.
(1.) And first, the reader will
perceive that this whole hypothesis of insanity was founded on a fabricated
assertion that Swedenborg had a fever of the brain just before his supposed
illumination. Its falsehood was known to Dr. P., yet he has deliberately
repeated it. Not wishing to weary the reader with repetition, we refer him
to what we had occasion to state on this subject in the begiiming. We will just
remind him of what was there said, that if he had ever an access of fever at
all, it was ten years after the date specified, and his subsequent
writings fully accord with those which precede. But the probability is that he
never had such a disease. No one in Sweden, where he was best known, had ever
heard of it. Chev. Sandel, before the assembled nobility and academicians of
the realm, all of whom knew Swedenborg well, declares, “he always enjoyed most
excellent health, having scarcely ever experienced the slightest indisposition.”
Mr. Henry Peckit of London, an early
reader of his works—on inquiry of those who had known him long and well, states
that “ he seldom or never complained or any bodily pain until a short
time before his death.”f
The story originated with a Mr.
Mathesius, Chaplain of the Swedish Embassy at London, a bigotted Lutheran, and
personally hostile to Swedenborg. Dr. P. “ has seen evidence ” of this last
particular. This is very modest in a Bangor Professor, Anno Domini,
1846. Mr. Springer, Swedish Consul at London, who was a friend of Swedenborg,
and knew them both, says so. Mr. Bergstrom, with whom Swedenborg had lodged,
and was a parishioner of the other, confirms the statement. Swedenborg, while
on his death bed, refused to receive the communion from him, on that very
account, and sent for another clergyman; and Mathesius,—as if retributively
stricken for his malignant calumny—went mad himself, and died in that
state. And this exploded falsehood—known by him to be such—is picked up by Dr.
P., because without it he could not make out even a plausible case.
But Mr. John Wesley says he had
a fever, and thought he was mad. Now we desire to think well of Mr. W., who in
a degenerate age strove to stem the torrent of corruption, which had invaded
all ranks, and to carry what he thought the Gospel to the most neglected
classes : of John Wesley, who, however mistaken in other respects, rejected
the peculiarities of Calvinism with all his spirits and strength. But his
enemies have thought he was guilty of reveries himself, concerning certain
strange appearances and sounds which disturbed his father's house and family.
And those who would cherish his memory with respect, would do well never to
mention his name in connexion with this subject. J. Wesley never saw
Swedenborg, and of course could know nothing personally of the matter.
Mathesius, one of his witnesses, is not a credible authority; and the other, a
Mr. Brockmer, with whom Swedenborg boarded in London, and at whose house the
illness was said to have occurred, from whom Mr. W. professed to have derived
confirmatory evidence with additional circumstances, on being interrogated
before witnesses, solemnly declared that “ Swedenborg never had a fever at
his house, and that he had never said a word to J. Wesley, or any one else on
the subject"* How are we to account for this discrepancy I Mr.
W., as the founder of Methodism, had the same motive with the Lutheran
Mathesius, or the Evangelical Dr. P., for wishing to believe him mad. Mathesius,
who had the seeds of madness in him, may have mistaken the wish for the
reality, and communicated it as a fact to Wesley. The latter was in part
mistaken as to the source from which he derived the fiction, which he
unconsciously embellished with a few touches of his own. Such is a probable,
and the more charitable mode of explaining this extraordinary statement which
was first circulated in print forty years after the pretended fact, by a
man who could in the same paragraph say that Swedenborg was “ a man of
strong understanding? and yet “ a madman.”1,
Thus much as to the state of his body.
As to his mind, he was meditating a philosophical work, in which he wished to
embody many of the results of his proceeding researches, and it is not usual
for one who is thus occupied to become deranged on religion. This work, though
entitled “The Worship and Love of God,” is more philosophical than religions I
and whatever the learned Professor of Bangor may think of its merits, one Samuel
Taylor Coleridge, who has been thought to know a little concerning
Philosophy, read it with the most unaffected admiration, and accorded it a high
enlogium.
The account of his extraordinary call,
as published by himself, is the most natural and unaffected possible. The more
detailed narrative imparted to his friend in the confidence of private
friendship, was reported by the latter from memory, and is possibly
inaccurate—certainly less authentic. But though more circumstantial it contains
as we have seen nothing irreconcileable with the most entire sanity and
self-possession—nothing incredible to one who believes in the possibility of
spiritual vision.
(2.) According to Swedenborg, there
are in the Spiritual World, innumerable societies, arranged in the human form.
The mode in which they operate on the living man to induce sensation, or pain,
or disease, is by what he calls “influx” into that part of the body which
corresponds to the part of the Greater Form in which themselves are situated.
This he learned by varied experience. Thus, on one occasion, he was seized with
sickness from this source which lasted three days and a half, during all which
time he was conscious of its origin and effects. At another time he ‘ ’ perceived
a change in his brain, and a powerful
operation theuee proceeding;” and he would have been equally sensible of it, if
it had affected any other part of the body. Now, each of these is to Dr. P., “
a very mysterious circumstance,” though Swedenborg, has repeatedly explained
their nature. But, if he had not, is it very common for deranged persons to be aware
of the disorders in their brain, to be sensible of them, to observe
and record them ?
(3.) In 2 Cor. xii. 2; and Acts viii.
39, 40, are two remarkable expressions. Paul did not know “ whether he was
in or out of the body." Philip, after his interview with the
Ethiopian “ was carried by the Spirit to another place,” a clear exposition
of these mysterious phrases was long desired by Christians. Now Swedenborg
states that “ for the sake of illustrating,” and “ that he might know its
quality,” he “ was two or three times let into these stateswhile
in them “ he know no other than that he was wide awake.” He does not say
that it was “optional,” whether he should be let into this or any other
spiritual states, butthat it was permitted, for a particular purpose. He
remembered his sensations, and has recorded these “ experimental ” cases
for our instruction. And here comes candid Dr. P. and asserts that he “fell
into” and was “ subject to sueh fits” of “somnambulism!"
that “he may have had them frequently!!” that they were habitual,
and that “his followers concede it!!” How could he know that this state
“ was not one of full wakefulness of body,” since he says that while in it, “
one cannot know any other than that he is altogether awake ?” But what if he
remembered on coming out of it, all that then passed 1 Verily, the
critic must have been hardly bestead when he calls this “somnambulism”—or makes
it a proof “ of mental aberration ”—not reflecting that both of the Apostles
would be equally scathed by the reflection.
(4.) Swedenborg—as before
said—professed to have had his spiritual sight opened that he might obtain
knowledge important to the proper understanding of Christianity, and this
during many years. Sometimes he kept his bed for several successive days and
took his food at irregular intervals : at others he would seem to converse with
those who were not visible to a third person : at others again, it is recorded
that his eyes would shine with a preternatural light. Now though he himself
told his servants that during his abstinence and protracted sleep “ he was well
and had needed nothingand again that “ the brilliancy of his eyes, which had
alarmed them, would soon disappear, and would hurt neither him nor them all of
which proved true ; and though he explained to inquirers the cause of his
apparently “talking to himself” at various times, yet Dr. P. thinks that these
several symptoms—the most important of which have their parallels in
Scripture—are indicative of insanity ! It is granted that he was reasonable on
other subjects, and the Lecturer does not openly deny the possibility of
spiritual vision—though he has unwittingly exhibited his incredulity more than
once. Supposing it true that the gift was imparted for a public object, was
there anything unnatural in these incidents 1
(5.) The disciples of Swedenborg have
never denied that some of his contemporaries affected to think him deranged.
They only denied that it was true.
They demand the proof, and all they
receive—other than the surmises of the ignorant and the interested—is the
clumsy story of a hostile and lying priest, which, though exploded at the time,
is caught up and re-eehoed by others of the same stamp from that day to this.
We must own also that some of the
Swedish clergy, on learning that his writings had begun to attract public
attention, became alarmed and inimical. A faction among these at first proposed
to denounce him as a heretie, but finding it easier to belie the man than to
refute his doctrine, they industriously circulated a report that he was insane
and framed an artful conspiracy to have him tried, condemned, and confined as
such. Their nefarious scheme was penetrated by certain high officers of state,
who, knowing the falsity of the charge, could well divine the motive which had
prompted it. They were not so ignorant of history or human nature as to be
unaware of the sleepless hate of a hierarchy when once aroused, or of how unscrupulous
they could be in the use of means to effect their purposes. His
persecutors—having been foiled in their first attempt by the intervention of
these honorable laymen—fell back on their original design. But Swedenborg
having met the charge and submitted his defence, they sustained a like
ignominious defeat here also. Dr. Beyer, a distinguished divine, who had
been prejudiced by the rumor to whieh we have referred, was so fortunate as to
make the acquaintance of our author, and having heard from his own mouth an
exposition of his system, yielded to the force of truth: became an avowed
adherent of his doctrine, and thereby drew on himself a like persecution, but
happily with a like result. And thus has it ever been, with a few honorable
exceptions, in every country where his writings have been circulated. Ridicule,
calumny, conspiracy, terrorism, denunciation, every means except that of open
and fair argument have been used to prevent their spread or to neutralize their
influence; and though often with effect, yet still they survive and bide
their time.
(6.) Dr. P. is welcome to all the aid
he can fairly derive from his instances of individuals, who, while diseased,
saw more and other things than when they were tranquil and well. Nicolai,
naturally of an irritable temperament, was thus troubled only when he was worn
with anxiety and disappointment. The Seeress of Prevorst was the acknowledged
victim of the most distressing nervous affection. A third was wounded in the
head during a brawl: a fourth in battle. Some were the voluntary dupes of
then- own superstitious fears; others, the subjects of various
nervous maladies, were the inmates of hospitals. We make him a present of these
and as many more such as he may choose to collect; for they are all explained
by the philosophy of Swedenborg and by no other. But, were it otherwise,
what then 1 Are we to infer that, because the seers were disordered in body,
the objects seen were imaginary in all the.cases, even if some of them were
persuaded to think so afterwards ? Do they not rather prove that there is a
spiritual world and that persons laboring under particular forms of
nervous disease, or by certain kinds of superinduced nervous excitement, maybe
admitted to a partial view of it. Nor would it follow from this that the
information brought thence was either credible or otherwise of value, merely
because it came from a source above nature. And if Swedenborg had done
nothing else, he has, by deducing this last as a law of the spiritual world,
stricken a blow at the root of all de grading superstitious and foolish fears.
When Dr. P. shall have proved, in the face of testimony to his uniform
health of body and mind by the most respectable individuals who knew him best
and had no motive to deceive, that he was affected in any of those ways,
we promise to consider his examples farther. We may say, moreover, that we
have never heard that any of those persons professed to bring from that world
revelations of important religious truth. If the Reviewer or any of his
coadjutors shall bring from such a source a pretended refutation of our
author’s doctrine, or something better in lieu of it, we promise to give it a
fair hearing.
The Dr. has dwelt at some length on
the case of the Seeress. That he should deny the truth of her visions is
natural enough. And yet we suspect he would cut a pretty figure by the side of Kerner
and Eschenmayer and numerous other philosophers, who, sceptical
at first of the asserted facts, gave their credence after a full and
dispassionate examination. We must also correct a small error into which he has
fallen relative to one of her dicta. He pronounces her idea of the soul
and body being united by “the nerve spirit” more reasonable than Swedenborg’s.
They happen to be the same, though a little differently expressed, as
witness the following extract. “ The natural mind of man consists of spiritual
substances, and at the same time of natural substances; from its spiritual substances
becomes thought, but not from the natural substances ; these substances recede
when a man dies, but not the spiritual substances; wherefore that same mind
after death, when a man becomes a spirit or an angel, remains in a form similar
to that in which it was in the world. The natural substances of that mind,
which, as was said, recede by death, make the cutaneous envelope of the
spiritual body, in which spirits and angels are. By such envelope, which is
taken from the natural world, their spiritual bodies subsist: for the natural
is the containing ultimate” (D. L. fy W., 257).
Again: Rev. William Tennent once
promised to give a particular account of what he saw during his memorable
trance. He omitted to do so—or none was found among his papers. Yet the brief
intimations he has left are credible to Dr. P.—perhaps because he was an evangelical
clergyman. Possibly he may alter his mind when he is informed that they contain
nothing irreconcileable with Swedenborg’s account of the same scenes.
It seems also that Professor
Hitchcock, an orthodox divine, may have a fever temporarily affecting
his brain yet passing off without farther ill effects. Such a concession, we
would suggest to the Dr. must have been a lapsus penna, as, if carried
out fairly, it would seriously damage his whole argument founded on the fictitious
statement regarding Swedenborg.
Mr. Le Roy Sunderland
must be “ a marvelous proper man” to have “ caused persons of a certain
temperament to imagine they were conversing with angels and spirits while
they were awake;"1' and to believe himself that “ the
visions thus induced were as real and partook as much of the
supernatural as any of those of Swedenborg.” He has not told us whether any
one attempted a similar trick on the latter person. Mr. S. may be a great
authority among the Bedlamites of Massachusetts, but not with us. We do not
feel at all more inclined to embrace Materialism because it has been advocated
by him than by any other credulous physiologist. We would propose, however,
that he continue his wonder-working?, and if, with the addition of his own
ingenuity to that of all his Pathetics, he can call np a refutation of
the system of Swedenborg, or some more credible revelations than his, we
promise him a hearing also. But we must tell him beforehand, that if after such
a declaration he can evoke no better specimens than those furnished by Dr.
Woods, he deserves to take the place of his patients.
Swedenborg has given the following as
a reason why it is not desirable that the power of spiritual vision should be
indiscriminately given at this day. “ The spirits which attend a man are such
as are in agreement with his affections and thoughts. Hence, did he
openly converse with them, they would only confirm him in hisexisting state
of mind, and add their testimony to the truth of all his falses, and the
good of all his evils. Enthusiasts would thus be confirmed in their enthusiasm,
and fanatics in their fanaticism.”
The truth of this as a general law
seems to be verified by the fact that the spirits seen by any particular
individual, generally exhibit a sameness of character bearing some analogy to
his previous pursuits or ideas. But Swedenborg saw them of all kinds—none
however with wings—and whatever Mr. Emerson may say, we scarcely suppose
that Dr. P. himself believes that all of his spirits “ Swedeuborgize.”
This was hardly true of Luther, or Melancthon, or Calvin; and if by any force
of logic or imagination it could be made apparent in the others, it would only
prove that our author was a more “myriad-minded man’’ than Shakspeare himself.
For no other writer has so completely laid bare the springs of human action, or
so well defined the real diversities of character.
Nor should we be surprised at any
accordance between the philosophical ideas included in his theological works
and those which had been before reasoned out by himself. This may be accounted
for in either of two modes. He has told us that he was prepared for his mission
by all his previous training “from his youth up.” And if his philosophy to
that extent is true (and certainly it has not been scathed by Dr. P.), it ought
to be incorporated with his religion—at least should not come in collision with
it.
That he has dwelt much upon the dogmas
of Tripersonalism and Justification by Faith alone, is not denied ; but it was
because these are the fountains from whence have issued the poisonous
streams that have withered “ the garden of God and too great pains could not be
taken to draw off their bitter waters.
To eke out his hypothesis, the
Reviewer quotes the dicta of certain physicianst which, if
true, would prove all revelation to be impossible. Thus Dr. Ferriar has
said, “ a partial affection of the brain may exist which renders the patient
liable to spectral illusions, without disordering the judgment or memory!
From this peculiar condition of the sensorium, the best supported
stories of apparitions may be completely accounted for.”
The first proposition is simply
absurd. If the affection did not disorder either memory or judgment, the
seer would not believe illusive appearances to be real. The
latter, we should have thought, ought to prove rather too much for any man
calling himself a Christian. But such things are. And it is not impossible
that Festus may have had a D. D. or an M. D. to fortify him with just
such a notion when Paul told him his memorable relation which occasioned
his charge of madness against the Apostle.
Dr. Knight,
of New Haven, declares, “ in a certain diseased state of the nerves of the
senses, sensation is experienced without the presence of the objects upon which
it ordinarily depends. Such is the case with persons in delirium
tremens and in acute fevers." This, though neither novel nor
original, is probable enough, though we cannot see how it strengthens the other
part of his theory, viz : “ These also are they, who see visions and
dream dreams, to whom revelations of hidden and mysterious things are made, and
who converse with angels, or with the spirits of the dead.” If this notion be
tenable now, in all its breadth, it must have been true at all times;
and if applied to the seers, prophets, and apostles of old, and to numberless
of the early Christians, would involve them in the same category of fraud or
madness, and would moreover leave us without any certain test by which to
distinguish a true prophet from a false one. And such is the profane
Materialism which is endorsed by an Evangelical Professor of Theology in
the nineteenth century! Then by what right does a physician lay down a
principle which, in effect, prejudges the question ?
The same demand is made of the
Phrenologist with his “ marvelousness.” The fundamental principle of his
science—which if true in its basis, is yet far from complete—asserts a
plurality of organs in the brain, and that each of these has its special
function or functions. Suppose now that a particular part of the brain is
active in cases of spiritual vision, does it therefore follow that the
vision must necessarily be unreal or the action morbid ? And thus it is that of
all the credulous animals on earth, the most so is the psychological quack who
would make his ignorance pass forknowledge. He uses a few hard words without
meaning, calls a strange exhibition by a new name ; and not only will this
thin disguise impose upon the little vulgar, and serve as an excuse with the
great vulgar for dismissing an intrusive idea, but the successful charlatan becomes
in time the dupe of his own quackery. But again we ask, “ what has Dr. P. to do
with Phrenology, that other science which, a few years since, in the eyes of
the Evangelical, was Materialism, and led to Infidelity, Atheism and so
forth? When Geology, and Phrenology, and John Wesley, and hostile Lutherans,
and Worldlings, and Materialist Physicians are brought into requisition against
Swedenborg, it would seem to be the result of a new and ingenious application
of the maxim, “ Fas est ab hoste doceri.”
So eager is he in the pursuit of his
object that at last he is entirely thrown off his guard. Thus Swedenborg having
propounded the law of ordinary spiritual vision given above, “ never,” says the
Reviewer, “ did he utter a greater truth. . . The only difference between him
and me, relates to the nature of the spectres in question, he regarding
them as real beings, and I as imaginary.1" Here the
whole secret has escaped. Dr. P. in his heart is a Sadducee and does not
believe that spirits are real beings. If he had been as candid at first he
might have spared both himself and us much circumlocution, and we could have
met his brief assertion by as brief a denial and appealed to the divine Word as
the judge between us. Finally, he winds up his theory with borrowed thunder of
the same sort. “ His spectres followed chiefly in the train of his natural
thoughts, giving a sort of personal existence and reality to what were
before the theories and abstractions—the mere conceptions—of his own mind.
This theory harmonizes all the known facts in the case of Swedenborg;
and to my apprehension it is the only one which does. I propose it, therefore,
and I ac cept it, as the truth." That is to say—imagination
informed him of a fire which was taking place at the very moment three
hundred miles off. Imagination told him secrets which otherwise could not
be known to any living mortal, or to none others than the inquirers who
put him to the test. Imagination revealed to him an accoimt of the other world,
reasonable in itself and which harmonizes all the scattered notices of
Scripture. Imagination enabled him to illuminate all the dark places of
Theology and imparted to him a doctrine so reasonable and so Scriptural that
every effort to undermine or overthrow it, has thus far left it only more
impregnable ! Credat Judaeus!
Such then are the frivolous pretexts
for attempting to cast a shade on that majestic intellect, whose early
splendor, and whose strength reared trophies that excited the wonder and regard
of all that was most learned and respectable in his own country, and of
kindred minds throughout Europe; and whose maturity was called to as important
a function as ever mortal was invested withal. Well and faithfully was it
discharged. Nor have all been ungrateful for the service. And his memory
will be cherished with still deeper homage, when “ a world which has forgotten
its God-’ shall have been aroused from its slumbers, and the nations
shall follow their pioneer and guide in the only path which leads to purity and
peace.
CONCLUSORY.
APPEAL TO DX- POND.
If
the reader has accompanied us thus far with his patient attention, there
remains but little for us to add : and that we address principally to the ReJ
viewer himself. You have “urged your objections to the doctrines and claims of
Swedenborg. You have gone into a consideration of the character and state of
his mind, that your readers may have the means of forming an intelligent
opinion in regard to him.” And our readers can now judge how much weight
is to be ascribed to the former, and the degree of credence which is due to the
latter. If yon had observed the ordinary honesty—not to say courtesy, of a
disputant, you would not have reiterated old stale objections, nine- tenths of
which you must have known were refuted long before. If you had really
desired to deal fairly with the author, as you protest, it was not necessary
to have quoted as largely as you have done. A little more compression in
some cases, if there had been no suppression in others, would have conveyed a
far better idea of his meaning than you have imparted. The question of
“decency” is also remitted to the same tribunal. That you have often
misapprehended his sense, is probable; that you have more frequently misstated
it, is certain. You “make no pretension to a sixth or seventh sense;” nor to a
sense of justice either, while writing on this subject. You “claim only the
ordinary intelligence of a man, and if in the exercise of this . . • yon have
failed to represent them fairly, then they are zmintelligible."
Which being interpreted means, that the thousands who conceive the meaning of
the most perspicuous of writers differently from yourself, are either fools or
hypocrites. You have “aspersed no one’s character.” It is not true then.that
yon have quoted the reports of spies, and there is no such phrase as “ filthy
dreamer,” in your whole book. You have “impeached no one’s motives.” No one
then was charged with “ slandering” the distinguished dead, or with
“misrepresenting” the doctrines of the living. You have “assailed no one with
harsh or bitter words.” The spirit which dictated your “Review” is ill-
concealed, as ingenious as you may think yourself; and though you have
generally been as guarded in your expressions as if you were a disciple of
Loyola himself, yet you have occasionally indulged in expectorations which
could hardly have been worse if you had set up for a model of scurrility.* “ If
you are not mistaken you have written in a spirit of Love." ’Tis
true you have sometimes favored us with a jest—rare if not very rich—but if
this be your general strain of affection, what is your idea of a spirit
of hate ?
Your general conclusion from the whole
examination is, that “Swedenborgianism is not Christianity”—nor are its
professors so much as “ a Christian sect.” “ When certain persons abuse us,”
says Lacon, “let us ask ourselves what kind of character it is they like; we
shall often find this a very consolatory question.” We might possibly have
be.en alarmed at yonr fulmination, and have asked ourselves whether we had a
Protestant Pope in America. But our fears subsided when we came to consider the
five notable reasons for this judgment.
We have a ready reply to them all, and
a sufficient preservative of our tranquillity in reflecting: (1.) That the
New-Churchman doesnot worship three “Gods” or “persons” or “somewhat,,” but the
Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Christian’s God and the only God. (2.j Our faith
is deduced from, and in entire harmony with, that Bible which is sequestrated
by Catholics : a mystery in the hands of Protestants, and perverted and abused
by both. (3.) Our hope of salvation is founded on the truth that “God was in
Christ reconciling the world unto himself”—and that by faith, charity
and obedience to his laws, we may be individually reconciled or “ atoned” to
him in turn. (4.) If we might be “made just,” and therefore saved by faith
alone—and that at the last gasp of life—we could not see the necessity of any
“rule of morality,” except as an idle ceremony; but knowing of no such potent
or elastic faith, we accept the infallible Canon of duty given in the
decalogue. (5.) We are human beings here and have no reason to think that
we shall be transformed into something different in kind hereafter, or that we
shall there find other and higher beings, between us and our God. We can
conceive no use for a body of flesh in a spiritual world. And while for
ourselves we expect to enter on our retribution immediately on leaving this
scene—which will be happy or miserable according to the character formed
here—we also believe that this will ever be
See pp. 112,
115, 118, 196, 211, 215, 223, 227, 234, 236.
preserved as the natal soil, from
which fresh emigrants will be travelling towards the throne of the Eternal.
Such, in brief, are our principles. As
they have sustained us under heavier inflictions than your denial of
Christian fellowship, so we are happy to know that there are many
professing Christians of the Old Church, in America—aye among the more liberal
portion of the Evangelical sects—who would not dare thus to consign ns
over to “ the uncovenanted mercies of God”—sugaring over the curse with the
compliment, that “ a Swedenborgian may perhaps be a Christian, although he has
but a grain of truth in a bushel of errors.” “You can respect your
Swedenborgian neighbor as a citizen and a man ; yon can perform for him every
kind and friendly office; you can accord to him all civil and social rights,
and seek his good for time and eternity.” Put your professions in practise
then. Refrain from misrepresenting them and their principles. We ask no more
of you; and when we fail to reciprocate such courtesies, yon will have
a far more plausible ground of objection to “ Swedenborgianism,” than any you
have incorporated in your book.
You denounce certain ministers of the
Old Church for holding our views and still retaining their pastoral relations,
although they adopted these principles after their ordination : make no secret
of them, and are permitted by their superiors to remain in their former
connection. And Swedenborg himself incurs your reproach for not having formally
separated from the Lutheran Church. You forget perhaps that in a preceding
page* you had expressed the very opposite sentiment.
“ If Swedenborg was deranged,”
say some, “ his followers are not, but many of them are highly intelligent. How
are we to account for this?’1- You acknowledge the fact: share in
their surprise, and very politely inform them that it is not more strange than
that certain Fathers of the Church should have given in to heresies, or that
there are such people as Mormons and Shakers. Not to be behind you in
civility—you will pardon us for saying that we also have heard questions asked
and answers returned to the following effect:
“Did you ever know a Predestinarian
who was willing to believe that he himself was among the reprobate ? And
can you account for the fact that so many kind-hearted and apparently
truth-loving men even profess a religion which holds out such harsh and
terrible views of the character of Deity ; such exaggerated and unjust views of
the character of man; such gloomy views of the world and its fate; such false
views of human duty: which damns the heathen: leaves the fate of infants
uncertain, and consigns the majority of men, in Christian countries, to eternal
perdition, for not doing that which they had no power to perform ?” “ Sir, they
did not make their creed, and are therefore not wholly responsible for its
errors. They have inherited or adopted it, as convenient: perhaps they knew no
other and hence make its maintenance a point of honor. They have been told by
their teachers that these subjects are unintelligible, and therefore they walk
all their days in the twilight of ‘ mystery.’ They suppress doubt, eschew
inquiry; or, if they suspect that all is not right, they dread its avowal, or
fear to brave public opinion, by
countenancing a truth which happens
not to be in vogue.” To which might have been added, in your own words : “Manis
naturally a religious being. He must and he will have some kind of religion,
and when he departs from the plain standard of the Bible, there is no accounting
for his vagaries.” “But how did such notions originate ?”» Alas! sir,
there are men of atrabilious temperament, who do not love their
fellow-creatures as they should, and think that God is altogether such an
one as themselves. They wish a pretext for misrepresenting Him and
denouncing them. “ Such persons are also constitutionally more exposed to
extravagances of this kind than others. They are not satisfied with plain,
intelligible ideas. They are fond of paradox more especially in matters
of religion. And the more incredible the dogma appears to reason, the more
likely will it be to gain adherents, especially if it proceeds from a
self-styled Evangelical Reformer.”
We do not know that we ought to
quarrel with your “ special reasons,” to account for the adoption of this faith
by intelligent minds. Our religion is “poetical” and sublime; but it is
also simple and true. It vindicates the Deity as “ a God of
Lovejustifies His ways to man: consoles under trials, and therefore it is
attractive to the benevolent heart.
We must also own that “it does reject
the offensive dogfnas held by the Evangelical. (Hine ilia lachryma!)
“Some are dissatisfied with their notion of a Tripersonal Deity 5 and
still do not wish to become Unitarians, in the more common acceptation of the
term. And so they adopt the New-Church view of the Trinity which verily
does remove all difficulty and makes the matter perfectly plain.” They cannot
understand how man can be saved by “mere thought.” And though they ascribe no
“merit” to the Christian life, they can perceive how a character formed on that
model wall fit the subject for future happiness; which a just and merciful God
will apportion to his capacity. They never said that it was an “ easy” thing “
to shun evils as sins against God,” or a small matter to obey the decalogue.
But they do not believe it impossible to learn obedience. Though they
may commence in much weakness ; their piety and charity being but as a grain of
mustard-seed, they hope, by the divine aid concurring with their own
dilligence, to grow in strength, knowing that their labor, whatever it be, will
not be wholly in vain.
The New Christian Church is yet in its
infancy, and in the wilderness. How long it may be detained there we know not.
But “ the Earth abideth for ever." Our doctrine, we believe, was “
revealed from Heavenand Truth is stronger than all and must ultimately prevail
over whatever may oppose it. Her God, we trust will watch over her—be in the
midst her—defend his own cause and make her at length, what she has the
capacity of becoming, “the crown of all churches.”
Most heartily then do we join in the
exhortation to your readers. “Let us be thankful for the Bible. Let us love it
more, and study it with greater dilligence and fidelity: interpret it fairly
and honestly." Let us neither be frightened with the cry of
“mystery!” nor get turned aside to follow meteors which may delude us to our
ruin.” But whose is the delusion ? Is it with us 1 and do you
verily suppose that “ the perusal of the entire works of Swedenborg” would
dispel it from our minds. Some of our number do not possess all his volumes,
but would willingly accept them even from their friend Dr. P.—nay, offer
themselves as subjects of his proposed experiment, if thereby they may obtain
the coveted treasure. Again, then, we ask, “where is the delusion ?”
The Rev. John Clowes of Manchester,
England—that venerable man, who for more than sixty years worshiped the
Christian’s God, and preached Him to others : who walked in a bright and
elevated tract of piety which endeared him to his parishioners, and
demonstrated the tendency of his principles to a wide circle of acquaintances,
and whose intellect was as polished and vigorous, as his heart was warm—when
rudely assailed by an Evangelical opponent for holding what the other was
pleased to style “ a delusive and dangerous heresy,” meekly replied, “ I have
examined it, and this examination has been continued now for upwards of
forty years, during which period I have asked myself a thousand aud a
thousand times the following questions: Can there be any delusion and danger
in believing Jesus Christ to be
the Most High God, and in drawing
nigh unto and adoring Him accordingly ? Can there be any delusion and danger in
loving this God with all my heart, and soul, and strength; and putting my whole
trust in Him ? Can there be any delusion and danger in acknowledging Him to be
at once my Creator, my Redeemer, and my Regenerator ? Can there be any
delusion and danger in being persuaded that what is commonly called the
word of God, is in very deed and truth the Word of God : in
acknowledging this Word to be replenished with the divine love and wisdom in
all its parts and in endeavoring to keep all its holy precepts, by forsaking
all sin, and living a good life under the blessed guidance and influence of its
divine Author ? Can there be delusion and danger in loving my neighbor as
myself, and fulfilling my duties towards him, by doing to him as I would have
him do to me ? Or, in abounding in good works, whilst I acknowledge humbly and
gratefully that all my power to do them is from Jesus Christ, and that
consequently all the merit of them belongs to that great and holy God ? Or, in
believing that I have free-will, and that if I had not I could not be a man,
and that consequently I am responsible before God for my own conduct ? And
lastly, can there be any delusion and danger in ascribing all evil to man, and
not to God; and thus in insisting that man by the abuse of his free-will, has
given birth to sin, to death, to hell and to all its torments, whilst the mercy
of God has been continually striving to avert all those mischiefs, and to
mitigate where it could not avert I I have asked myself, I say, these
questions a thousand and a thousand times, and at every time I have been
more and more convinced that they ought to be answered by a positive and
peremptory, no. Can there then, I
ask farther, be any delusion and danger in the system which recommends
and enforces the above Evangelical duties ? And the same peremptory and
positive no, resounds, not from my
own voice alone, but from the tongues of all the heavenly host, who sing ‘
Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent
reignethl ”*
Such, also, are our principles; and
such are they like to be, unless their fallacy can be shown, or something
better offered us in their stead.
But judging from the past, we see
little likelihood of either. The warfare.
Letter to Rev.
W. Roby, p. 98.
as hitherto conducted against
Swedenborg, persists in ignoring the fundamental positions involved in
the system. Our adversaries refuse to deal with our premises, and incessantly
urge their assault upon our conclusions. But on this ground, what do all their
“ arguings reprove I” What do all their earnest and voluminous diatribes amount
to in the way of achieving a conviction of the falsity of our views ? If they
would reason to any purpose, let them show that the laws of the Divine and
human nature are not what Swedenborg affirms them, or, failing this, let them
evince that the great doctrines of Christianity, as propounded by him, do not
legitimately found themselves upon these underlying laws. When this is
accomplished some progress is made towards our discomfiture in the field of
debate ; but until then we bestow only a tranquil smile upon the elaborate
impotence of our opponents.
FINIS.
During
a discussion between Catholics and Protestants, which took place in 1828, at
Freemasons’ Tavern, London, the following sentences were quoted by the
advocates of Romanism from Luther, and passed without challenge :
“ Though the Papists (writes Luther)
bring heaps of Scriptures, as commending good works, yet I care not for them
though they bring more. Thou, Papist, art very brag with thy works and
Scripture : yet Scripture is a servant of Christ; therefore it moves me
nothing. Rely thou upon the servant; I will rely upon the Master and Lord of
Scripture : to him I yield ; I know that he will not lead me into error. I will
rather adhere to him than, for all Scriptures, to be altered a hair’s breadth
from my opinion. Therefore the ten commandments do not belong to us
Christians, but only to Jews: which is proved out of the text, speaking to
those whom he brought out of Egypt, who were Jews, not Christians. We will not
admit that any of the bad precepts of Moses be imposed upon us. Wherefore look
that Moses with all his law be sent packing in malam rem—with a
mischief—and that thou be not moved with any terror of him, but hold him
suspected for a heretic, cursed and damned, and worse than the devil.”—(Noble's
Lecture, pp. 450, 451.)
In a volume of Discourses—the joint
contribution of clergymen of various denominations—which led to the preliminary
meeting of “The Evangelical Alliance,” is an Address by Rev. J. Angell James, a
Congregational minister, and justly esteemed evangelical writer in England.
Having displayed in forcible terms the evils of division in the Protestant
Churches, he had also the sagacity to perceive and the candor to acknowledge
that they were traceable in a great degree to the spirit which was generated by
the prevalent doctrine of “Justification by Faith alone."
“Men have been busy, in the eagerness
of their misguided zeal, and the selfishness of their wicked hearts, to
improve upon inspired wisdom, by inverting the apostolic order of the graces,
and making love the last and the least of the three ; nay, their mischievous
attempt has not stopped here, for, in effect at least, they have endeavored to
blot it altogether, and to reduce religion from the divine triplicity that St.
Paul has given it, to a mere duality, and to make it consist exclusively of
faith and hope. And since weare everywhere taught that Religion is God’s image
in the soul of man, what does all this come to, as the last reach of its
turpitude, but to rifle the divine character of love, its ineffable glory, and
to make Jehovah simply a God of truth and justice ? Leaving, then, the number
and order of the graces as we find it in Scripture, and practically submitting
to the truth of the apostolic declaration, that ‘the greatest of these is
charity,’ let y^sit down again at the feet of this inspired teacher, and,
studying afresh thq^enius of Christianity as it is portrayed in his elegant
and beautiful personification, let us
put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness ; and thus attired, be
prepared for union with all our brethren.
“ Is there, then, notwithstanding our
differences, a principle known—a principle attainable by us all—a principle
which is an integral part of our religion —a principle which if it were more
cultivated and in full exercise, would subjugate all that is low, and selfish,
and malevolent in our nature ; and which, while it filled our own bosom with
peace, would give us peace with our fel- low-christians of every name ? There
is. It is love—holy love—heavenly
love—Christian love. But where is it to be found 1 In the heart of God,
in the bosom of Jesus, in the minds of angels, in the spirits of just men made
perfect, and in the pages of the New Testament, we know: but where on earth
shall we find it ? It ought to be seen in beauty and in vigor in the church of Christ;
this is built to be its mansion, and for its residence. But how little is it to
be found in this its own and appropriated abode ? How frequently is it driven
away by the strifes, divisions, and clamors of other spirits, that have
obtruded into its proper domicile, and rendered that habitation, which was
intended to be the seat of uninterrupted peace, and of untroubled repose, a
scene of noisy conflict and fierce contention ? Let us all join our efforts to
cast out the unclean spirits that have driven away love from her abode : and,
reinstating the heavenly tenant in her own possession, let us yield up our
hearts to her holy and benignant sway.”—(Essays on Christian Union, pp.
217, 218).
APPENDIX B. (p. 90.)
Many Christians, well informed on
other matters pertaining to religion, have a very inadequate idea of the
peculiar tenets of the modern Jews, chiefly because the sources of such
information are not generally accessible. A recent “ History of all the
Religious Denominations in the U. S.” contains an article on “ The Jews and
their Religion,” by Rev. Isaac Leeser, one of their number. From this we have
selected a few passages, to indicate to our readers both the nature and the
inveteracy of their prejudices.
“The Being to be adored . . is
uniform. . . There are no discoverable means to divide him into parts. . .
He is without bodily conformation, without outward shape.”
He speaks of “the Abrahamic discoveries"
in the ethical sciences; that the Jews were “ the first and for a long
time the only nation who believed truly in the Creator alone that “ the
precepts of the Decalogue,” although divine, were possessed by them before
all other nations.
“We totally reject the idea of a
mediator, either past or to come : we reject him whom the Christians call their
Messiah : and we assert that for our part, the law is of the same binding
force, as it was in the beginning of its institution. . . We assert that the
Deity is one and alone; that hence, no mediator, or an emanation from
the Creator is conceivable. . . We contend that the Scriptures teach an
absolute, not a relative Unity in the Godhead, that the same Being who existed
from the beginning, and who called forth all that exists, the Lord God of
Hosts, is the sole Legislator and Redeemer of all his creatures.
We contend that a divided Unity, or a
homogeneous Divinity composed of parts, is nowhere spoken of in the Old
Testament, our only rule of faith, and that nothing, not contained therein,
can become, by any possibility, matter of faith or hope for an Israelite.
We know well enough that some ingenious accommodations have been invented by
learned men to reconcile the above texts, with the received opinions of
Christianity ; but we have always been taught to receive the Scriptures
literally; we assert that the law is not allegorical; that the denunciation
of punishment against us has been literally accomplished; and that therefore no
verse of the Bible can, in its primary sense, be taken otherwise than in its
literal and evident meaning, especially if this is the most obvious, and leads
to no conclusion which is elsewhere contradicted by another biblical text. . .
If God be absolutely one, if he is not conceivable to be divided into
parts, if there is no Saviour besides Him, it follows that there can be no
personage, who could by any possibility be called ‘ Son of God,’ or the
mediator between God and man. An independent Deity he cannot be, neither can he
be an associate ; and if he be neither, how can he be more a mediator than any
other creature ?—since one man cannot atone for the sins of another, as we are
informed in Exodus xxxii. 33, ‘ And the Lord said unto Moses, Whosoever hath
sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book;’ which evidently teaches,
that every sinner has to make atonement for himself, and can obtain pardon only
through the undeserved mercy of the Lord. If now the mediator is not the
Creator himself, he cannot offer an atonement, nay not even himself; and if he
could he would be equal to the one from whom all has sprung; and such a being is
impossible in accordance with the testimony of the Bible. From this it follows
that we Jews cannot admit the divinity of the Messiah of the Christians,
nor confide in his mission upon Unitarian principles, since the books
containing an account of his life, all claim for him the power of mediatorship,
if not an equality with the Supreme, both of which ideas we reject as
unscriptural. If then there has been as yet no manifestation of the divine
will, in respect to the repeal of the law (since we cannot believe a mere
man to have, by simple preaching, and
the exhibition of miracles, even admitting their authenticity, been
able to abrogate what God so solemnly instituted), we again claim that the
whole ceremonial, and religious as well as civil legislation of Sinai,
is to this day unrepealed, and is consequently as binding on ns
Israelites, the proper recipients of the Mosaic code, as on the day of its
first promulgation. We in this manner acknowledge and maintain that we do not
believe in the mediatorship, nor in the mission of the Messiah of the
Christians, nor in the abrogation of the Mosiac law of works. But we
nevertheless contend that this rejection of the popular religion, is no cause
for the entertainment of any ill-w’ill against ns, nor for the eforts which
some over-zealous people every now and then make for our conversion. . .
Properly speaking the Jews have no profession of faith; they hold the whole
Word of God to be alike fundamental, and that in sanctity, there is no
difference between the verses, ‘ And the sons of Dan, Hushim’ (Gen. xlvi.
23), and ‘ I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land ,of
Egypt, out of the house of bondage’ (Ex. xx. 2).”
Among their articles of belief are the
following. The belief in the incorporeality 'rtbp-
Creator, that He is not a material being, and cannot be affected by accidents
which affect material things. The belief in the truth of the prophecy of Moses,
and that he was the greatest of all the prophets and wise men who have
lived before him or will come after him. The belief in the permanency of
the law, and that there has not been, nor will there ever be, another law
promulgated by the Creator. The belief in the coming of the King Messiah, who
is to accomplish for the world and Israel, all that the prophets have foretold
concerning him. “ It will be seen that a distinctive feature in our belief is,
the permanency of the law revealed on Sinai, through Moses, the father
of the prophets, which precludes the admission of any new revelation, or
the abrogation of the old covenant. Another, “ the belief in the
absolute unity of God,” with the addition that “ there is no being but the
Creator to whom we should pray,” precludes the admissibility of a mediator, or
the mediating power between God and us mortal sinners of any being, whose
existence the imagination can by any possibility conceive as possible.
We think and maintain, that these principles are legitimate deductions of the
text of holy writ: and we must therefore, if even on no other ground,
reject the principles and doctrines of Christianity, which teach, first, that a
new covenant has been made between God and mankind other than the revelation
at Horeb; and, secondly, that there is a mediator, an emanation of the Deity,
through whose merits only man can be absolved from sin, and through whose
intercession prayers will be accepted. All this is foreign to our view of
scriptural truth, and as such we reject it, and hold fast to the doctrines
which we have received from our fathers.”
“ The Messiah whom we expect is not to
be a God, nor a part of the Godhead, nor a son of God in any
sense of the word; but simply a man, eminently endowed like Moses
and the prophets, in the days of the Bible, to work out the will of God on
earth, in all that the prophets have predicted of him.
“We believe that the time may be
distant, thousands of years removed; but we confidently look forward to
its coming, in the full confidence that He who has so miraculously
preserved his people, among so many trials and dangers, is able and willing to
fulfil all he has promised, and that his power will surely accomplish what his
goodness has foretold. ”
We ask now, “ Has Swedenborg
misrepresented the character of the Jews as a people ?” Here is a portrait
drawn by one of themselves. So long as this infatuated race retain such
principles of interpreting Scripture, and if even miracles which
established their law cannot repeal it, have they not fenced out all
approach to their minds from without ? There is no hope of any
alteration for the better which does not originate among themselves. And
happily there are symptoms of a change going on among them in Europe at this
hour, not only as to some of their ceremonial observances, but of more liberal
views as to matters of faith. We hardly think it morally possible, however, for
any great number of Jews to accept Christianity, except on the principles of
the New Church. Our doctrine furnishes a ground of compromise, on which
not only they but every known Christian sect might meet in harmony, and it will
enable them all to trace their past differences to the several points at which
they diverge from each and from the true standard. As a small “ sign of the
times” we may mention that “ Tancred,” a work of fiction by Mr. Benjamin
D’Israeli, M. P. and a Jew, though breathing generally the spirit of the
Hebrew, contains a
number of sentiments with regard to
the sole Divinity of the Saviour and other subjects, to which we as New
Churchmen can subscribe; some so remarkable as to make it a phenomenon in
that kind of literature, if they may be regarded as an index of a growing state
of opinion among the more intelligent minds of that race. We only regret that
our space does not permit ns to extract them also.
APPENDIX C. (p. 89.)
If the passages cited in the text are
not sufficient to prove that Swedenborg has fairly represented the opinions of
Calvin and his followers, we would refer the reader for proof to the fourteenth
of “ Chapman’s Sermons on the Ministry, Doctrines and Worship of the
Protestant Episcopal Church,” pp. 225-232.
APPENDIX D. (p. 96.)
The assertion in the text may be
justified by the following paragraphs from. Mr. Hallam’s Hist, of Lit. I. 195,
280,281.
“ Servetus,
though not at all an Arian, framed a scheme, not probably quite novel, which is
a difficult matter, but sounding very unlike what was deemed orthodoxy. His
tenets seem to be nearly what are called sabellian.”
“ The title of the first treatise [or 1
Christianismi Restitutio’] runs thus:—‘ De Trinitate Divina, quod in ea non sit
invisibilium trium rerum illusio, sed vera substantiae Dei manifestatio
in verbo, et communicatio in spirtu.’
“ Servetus distinctly held the
divinity of Christ. ‘ Dialogus secundus modum generationis Christi docet, quod
ipse non sit creatns, nec finite potential, sed vere adorandus, verusque Deus.’
“ He probably ascribed this divinity
to the presence of the Logos, as a manifestation of God by that name, but
denied its distinct personality in the sense of an intelligent being different
from the Father. Many others may have said something of the same kind, bnt in
more cautious language, and respecting more the conventional phraseology of
theologians. Ilie crucem, hie diadema.
“The tenets of Servetus are not easily
ascertained in all respects. Some of them were considered infidel and even
pantheistical; but there can be little ground for such imputations when we
consider the tenor of his writings, and the fate which he might have escaped by
a retraction.”
Chauffpie and Alwoerdon,
biographers of Servetus, appear not to have apprehended very exactly or
fully, his views on this subject. They have, however, given copious extracts
from his writings, which render them perfectly intelligible to a New
Churchman. The works themselves are exceedingly scarce, but a AIS. copy of each
of the principal treatises is in the Library of Harvard College, and these may
afford the means of tardy justice to the memory of a man who has been the
victim of calumny for three hundred years.
“ The distinction of sex rooted in the
spirit itself.” In the Foreign Quarterly Review, No. LVI. Art. 4, we have a
critique on the works of Wm. Van Humboldt. In this article some
extracts are given from an essay, in which the distinctive characteristics of
the male and female mind are very happily set forth, going to show that the
distinction of sex is rooted in the spirit and is of course eternal.
The same article makes honorable
mention of a then recent work by a Mr. Haughton, “ On Sex in the World
to come,” in which the same truth is philosophically deduced from a great
variety of considerations, without ever infringing on delicacy. This work is
also reviewed with copious extracts in Int. Rep. 4th Series, Vol. III. 150,
223.
APPENDIX F (p. 163.)
These approved historians are
not alone in their judgment on this subject.
A Mr. Foster, Chaplain to Bishop Jebb
of Limerick, after nine years study, published in 1839 a book entitled,
“Mahometanism Unveiled,” which was approved and sanctioned by his Diocesan, of
which we have an account in the Ed. Rev. No. 100, Art. 1. The Reviewer says, “
He (Mr. F.) undertakes to prove that the Mussulman is a Christian in
disguise. [This is farther than we go.] . . He pronounces it to be just as
impossible to account for the rise and success, as for the propagation of
Christianity, by merely human causes. The failure of previous attempts to
overcome this difficulty, by such arguments as rejected a special Providence,
led him to the conclusion, that a special Providence had interposed. He
soon discovered that direct evidence to this effect existed in the Old
Testament. Every one is aware, that a twofold promise was made by God to
Abraham, in behalf of his sons Isaac and Ishmael. By the terms of this promise
‘ a blessing is annexed to the posterity of each, as a mark of divine favor
towards the seed of Abraham. They are to become great nations, signally
connected with the providential history aud government of mankind. The greater
promise made to Isaac has received a temporal and spiritual fulfilment, first
in the establishment of the Jews in Canaan, and afterwards in the propagation
of Christianity. The lesser promise to Ishmael has had no analogous
fulfilment; unless it be in the rise of Mahomet, and in the temporal and
spiritual establishment of his creed. It becomes, therefore, of the utmost
importance, to demonstrate a corresponding analogy, in the facts that
respectively constitute this alleged fulfilment of the two parallel covenants.
With this view, the analogy between Judaism and Christianity, on the one hand,
and Mahometanism on the other, is traced the twelve elaborate sections. The
position hitherto occupied by Mahometanism, in its capacity as a middle term
between Christianity and Paganism, is of course only intermediate. But
whilst we are waiting for this further consummation, in the conversion of its
own communion to the more perfect faith, its immediate usefulness as a
necessary half way house, and the sole efficient instrument for the conversion
of the Heathen, is shown in a pointed manner. The gospel scheme, it
is admitted, is unsuited to the condition and capabilities of uncivilized
nations. The failure of Christian Missionaries to barbarous countries, is
contrasted with the striking success of Mahometanism. It thus discharges the
servile indeed, but necessary functions of a pioneer."
See also Noble's Appeal, 528, App. I.
g 20, for Adam Clarice's sanction of the same idea—approved by all
who did not know the source from whence he derived it.
In 1845, Rev. J. J. W. Jervis, of
England, in a work entitled “ Mahomet's Mission Asserted,” has followed out
with competent learning a similar train of thought to a like conclusion. [See
N. C. Advocate, 19,56, 127],
Perhaps Rev. Isaac Taylor would
be regarded by Evangelical readers as a still higher authority than any of
those authors. Will they then decry such sentiments as these from his “
Saturday Evening 1” “ Those fanciful analogies which it has become the fashion,
abroad, to employ for the illustration of the history of nations (much to the
hurt of all sound principles) are to be carefully avoided. Or at least we
should not build an argument upon any such uncertain ground. This
caution premised, it must be confessed that, in contemplating as a whole the
history of the two magnific superstitions which now sway all the nations of the
middle stage of civilization—embracing the south of Europe, the south of Asia,
the northern regions of Africa, and South America, it is difficult (in regard
to both of them alike) to exclude from the mind the resemblance which their
history bears to the course of human life, from the vigor of youth to the
decrepitude of age. Is it not as if the many nations we have mentioned, were
now in tutelage, under the hand of a venerable pair—male and female, both
equally stricken in years; and both equally petulant, jealous, rigid, and
effete ; and very likely to go to their sepulchres in company 1
“ The grave and masculine
superstition of the Asiatic nations, which employed the hot blood of its youth
in conquering all the fairest regions of the earth, spent its long and bright
manhood in the calm and worthy occupations of government and intelligence.
During four centuries the successors of Mahomet were the only men the
human race could at all boast of. In the latter season of its maturity, and
through a long course of time, the steadiness, the gravity, and the immoveable
rigor, which often mark the temper of man from the moment when his activity
declines, and until infirmity is confessed, belonged to Islamism, both western
and eastern. And now, is it necessary to prove that every symptom
characteristic of the last stage of human life, attaches to it ? Mahometan empire
is decrepit; Mahometan faith is decrepit: and both are so by confession
of the parties. In matters both civil and religious, those days are come upon
this superstition in which—‘ The sun, and the moon, and the stars
are darkened.’
“ But in what terms are we fairly to
describe the present health and powers of the haggard Superstition of the West
1 If the strength of immortality indeed be in her, to what region has the vital
energy retired I—is it kindling about the heart 1 Is it within and around the
pestilential levels of the Tiber, that we are to find the force, the
concentration, the fervor, that should belong to the centre of a living body 1
Or may we choose among the extremities 1 Is the Catholic faith otherwise than
decrepit, as it exists in the midst of the sceptical intelligence of the North
of Italy; or by the side of the mystic unbelief of Germany I Or shall we
prefer the mockery of France, to the debauchery of Spain, and of Portugal, when
we are thus in search of the power and promise of popery ? But perhaps Ireland
is the asylum of the true and indestructible religion 1 Those who will console
themselves with such a supposition, shall not be disturbed in their dreams ;
and yet will we not hold our conclusion in suspense—that Popery, like
Mahometanism, and every other superstition of mankind, is in its wane. Upon the
Church of Rome, most conspicuously, have come the many loathsome infirmities
that usually attend the close of a dissolute life. She who once lived
deliciously, and courted kings to her couch, is now spurned, and mocked, and
hated, in her wrinkles. Every ear into which she would whisper an obsequious
petition, is averted from the steam of her corrupted breath !”
Mr. T. Carlyle, in his “Hero-Worship,”
devotes a separate chapter to Mahomet, and seems to have taken a more
favorable view of his personal character than any of the rest.
APPENDIX G - (p. 135.)
The following extracts from the work
of Clissold referred to in the text, will be seen to develope very important
views in connection with the subject of Scriptural interpretation:
“ An argument in favor of the literal
sense alone is derived from the consideration, that God intended his Word
should be understood; and that in order to be understood, it must be received
in one sense only, and that one sense generally the literal. The argument is
thus stated by Dr. Sykes:
“ Words are the signs of our thoughts,
and therefore stand for the ideas in the mind of him that uses them. * * Were
God therefore to discover anything to mankind by any written revelation, and
were he to make use of such terms as stand for ideas in men’s minds, he must speak
to them so as to be understood by them. They must have in their minds the ideas
which God intended to excite in them.”—{Principles and Connexion of Natural
and Revealed Religion distinctly considered, by Arthur Ashley Sykes, D. D.)
“ In the examination of this argument,
let us begin with the premises, and consider the author, the intention of the
author, and the art of understanding what the author has written.
“First, then, with regard to the
author. It may be asked, who in the present case is the author'? Not the
Prophets, nor the Apostles, but God himself. Now the same God has said, “ My
thoughts are not your thoughts,” &c. (Isa. iv. 8.) Therefore, in the
present argument for the literal sense alone, is involved a theory of
inspiration which regards not God as the author of the Bible, but man. But if
God be the author and not man, and if his thoughts be not our thoughts, if,
nevertheless, he has used words to express his thoughts, which we use to express
our own, and if our own thoughts as attached to the words, be to us the plain,
obvious, and literal sense of the words, do we need any further argument to
show, that, if we understand the words in this sense only, we are not
understanding them in the sense designed by God ? Bishop Marsh observes:
“ 1 When we interpret the
words of a sacred historian, and consider those words as signs to the reader of
what was thought by the author, we may regard the historian himself as the
author. But when we interpret a prophecy we must distinguish between the author
and the writer. For when the knowledge of the writer is communicated to him by
an immediate suggestion of the Holy Spirit, we must consider the Holy Spirit as
the author of that knowledge, which the prophet, as a writer, communicates to
the reader. . . Whoever was the author of a passage, which we propose to
interpret, we must conclude, that he used his words in such senses, as he
supposed would be ascribed to, them by his readers. For if he used them in
other senses he would not inform but mislead. Consequently, whether we
interpret prophecy on the supposition that the words were chosen by the
prophet, or interpret prophecy on the supposition that the words were chosen
by the Holy Spirit, we must on either- supposition apply the same rules of
interpretation?—(Leet. VIII. p. 403.)
“ Now the learned prelate has
distinctly shown, that in an allegorical interpretation, the words are not
used in other senses, but in the same sense ; consequently, that even in
allegorical interpretation, the literal sense is retained as the basis of the
allegorical. I't is clear, therefore, that he nullifies, his own argument.
j‘ Next let us consider the intention
of the author.
“ It is affirmed, that his intention
is that we should understand what is written. But whatever may be the Divine
intentions, no one who believes in the freedom of the will, can suppose that
they can interfere with it. Man is.asfree to understand or not to
understand, as he is free to will or not to will ; in so far as the illumination of the
understanding is made to depend upon the purity of the will. Now the intention
of the Divine Author, as indeed the intention of every author, is to convey his
own thoughts in words best adapted to express them; and every author, of
eourse, wishes that his words so expressed, should be to others the signs of
those thoughts.. The usage of them in the proper sense is the part of the
author, the understanding of them is the part of the hearer ; but so far from
its being the design of the Almighty that all should understand, without
relation to the state of the will, the reverse is expressly stated in many
parts of Scripture. < ! thank thee, 0, Father, Lord of
Heaven and Earth,”
says our Saviour, “
that thou hast hid these things from the wise and the prudent and hast revealed
them unto babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.’
“ Mr. Birks, in his Elements of
Prophecy, although the advocate of a generally literal interpretation,
shows the fallacy of the present argument in support of it, for he observes:
“ 1 The maxim of
interpreting literally, if taken alone, may lead to errors quite as serious as
an opposite maxim of unrestrained and perpetual allegory. What do we mean by a
literal interpretation ? One in which, words have the same sense ascribed to
them which they usually bear in daily life. Now this is one half of the
truth needed for a right interpretation of the Scriptures. The Word of God is a
revelation to man. To be useful to. men, it must be definite and intelligible,
and in this sense, literal. But it is also a revelation from God. Now, to be
divine, it must contain higher truths, nobler thoughts, more full and deep
conceptions, than such as man conveys to his fellow-man. Therefore in employing
human language, it must exalt and expand the meaning of the terms which it
employs. It belongs to that kingdom of God which eye hath not seen, neither
hath it entered into the heart of man. Hence all its messages bear the same
character. They are literal, for they are given to man; they are mysterious,
for they proceed from God. To rob them of their mysteriousness is just as fatal
as to dissipate them into uncertain allegories. Now these two elements, which
clearly exist in every part of Scripture, may appear, in different parts, in
very different proportions. Some may be so literal as scarcely to be
distinguished outwardly from a merely human history ; others may be so
mysterious as almost to baffle the profoundest research of the most devout and
thoughtful minds, and the most dilligent efforts to determine their meaning.’—{Birk's
Elements of Sacred Prophecy, p. 250.)
“Another argument in favor of the
literal'sense alone, which we have now been considering, is by some writers put
into a different shape. Thus, in the Rules for the Interpretation of the
Prophetic Scriptures, as stated in the second lecture on the Destiny of the
Jews, the argument is set before us in the following manner:
Considering that it must have been the
design of the author really to instruct his readers, the words which he has
employed in his discourse must be understood according to the sense usually
attached to them by persons who spoke the language in which it is composed.’—(The
Destiny of the Jews, by the Rev. Thomas Tattershall, D. D. p. 42.)
“Now even where an allegorical or
spiritual sense is assigned to prophecy, we have already seen, that the words
retain the sense usually attached to them by persons who spoke the language in
which it is composed. The primary sense of the words, in this case, is not
altered, but a secondary sense superadded. Again it is said on page 43 :
“ ‘ Considering next, that, for the
same reason, the author would employ his various terms of expression, in such
senses as he was aware the parties to whom he addressed himself would attach to
them, we may therefore conclude, that the words of an author are to be
understood in the sense affixed to them by the persons for whose benefit they
were immediately written.’—(Lee. T. T. as above.)
“ But if this be the case there can be
no such thing as a wrong interpretation of prophecy, for as the words are to be
understood in the sense attached to them by the persons for whose benefit they
were immediately written, it follows, that whatever sense they think proper to
affix, must be the true one. Therefore, in any given passage, the literal sense
affixed by the literalist is the true sense, the figurative sense affixed by
the figuralist is the true sense; the mystical sense affixed by the
spiritualist is the true sense; for all the four different senses are affixed
to them by the persons for whose benefit they were immediately written ; and as
there may be a hundred different applications of the same prophecy, by a
hundred different literalists, to a hundred different events, so all these
hundred literal senses are equally true also, since they are the senses affixed
to the words by the persons for whose benefit they were immediately written.”—(Apoc.
Interp. Vol. I.pp. 176-185.)
P. S. We omitted to notice in the body
of our Reply a very serious charge of the Reviewer, viz : “ That Swedenborg,
without ceremony, sends all Unitarians to perdition.” The utter falsity
of this imputation must also have been known to the Dr., for it is especially
exposed in “ Hindmarsh’s Letters to Priestley.” (Let. HI. Sec. 13.)
Swedenborg teaches that it is dangerous to confirm one’s self in any
error, so as to close the mind against the force of evidence in the other life;
but he often declares that all who lead a good life according to the
religion they profess will be saved; and, if sincere lovers of truth, will be
divested of their errors in the future world, as views radically at variance
therewith cannot be tolerated in the Christian heaven.
The writer of this is acquainted with
but few persons of that faith. He does, however, personally know some, and many
others by reliable report. He has moreover read some of their most approved
works and periodicals, and the result of the whole is, a belief that for just
opinions on many points, for liberality, and the practical’ Christian virtues,
they put to shame thousands of great professors of religion in the
evangelical churches. Their fundamental principles, as professed, is
indeed wide as the poles asunder from that of the New Church, but we doubt not
also that many of them, at this day, have a far higher idea of the character
of the Saviour and more true veneration of Him, than Dr. P. himself.
Unitarians, we take it, will
appreciate this new-born zeal of the Dr. in their behalf at its full value.