the "Reasons." It is, in my view, quite the reverse of creditable to my understanding, that I should have been conducted to my present belief simply by the force of accidents and idiosyncrasies. And this is the same as saying that I should sink as low in my own esteem as it is possible I could do in that of the most hearty contemner of Swedenborg, had not the internal evidence of the truth of his teachings been so strong as to command my intelligent and cordial assent, apart from the operation of all adventitious causes.

And here, you must permit me to say, I recognize a weak point in your letter. You speak as if the whole system were a system of visions, and supposing that these may be psychologically accounted for without the admission of a supernatural origin, you appar. ently pay no regard to the doctrines, distinctively such, which are more or less clearly set forth in my pamphlet. Why are these overlooked? Why is no verdict pronounced upon them as true or false? The doctrines, for instance, of the Trinity, of the Atonement, of Regeneration, of Justification, &c.-Why are not these adverted to, and tried upon their intrinsic merits? Our claim is, that on the whole subject of dogmatic theology, there is a presentation of truth in these writings, of an order vastly transcending any thing hitherto offered to the world. This truth, we affirm, may be seen to be truth by the mind that fairly and candidly ponders it, and that there is nothing in the visions which is entitled to vacate its force. Indeed, it matters not, on this head, whether Swedenborg was the victim of the wildest hallucinations that ever crazed the brain of an enthusiast. We still ap peal to the intrinsic evidence of truth in his doctrinal teachings. We challenge, in their behalf, the strictest scrutiny, whether before the tribunal of reason or revelation. And while this process is going on, we will pretermit entirely the question of his personal state in the delivery of these doctrines. Suppose him, if you please, to have been at the time the inmate of a lunatic asylum. Yet, here are the doctrines, and we demand that they shall be judged by their own merits. Have you aught to say against them? Nay, more, are you not constrained to respect and admire them? Professing to come from God, are they not worthy of their alleged source? Can you conceive of any thing more pure, more elevated, more logical, more rational, more Scriptural? Do you recognize in them any thing that would lead you to suspect, in the least degree, that they had emanated from a mind diseased?

"Are

And here, permit me to say, is the point where the question of mental state presses hard upon the inquirer. He is forced to interrogate the phenomenon before him. these the words of one that hath a devil, or is mad?" How is it possible that such a masterly system of doctrines could have originated in a mind which was at the same time the abode of the most crude, disjointed, and preposterous phantasies? Does the same fountain send forth, at the same time, such sweet and bitter waters? Why should not the truths have nullified the phantasies, or the phantasies the truths? This is the problem which demands solution in Swedenborg's case, and which it would seem that the Christian world at large are determined never to accord to it. Yet, why not? Is there not something due to the testimony of those who have grappled in earnest with the problem, and who, in despite of all previous prejudice, have yielded to the force of evidence sustaining the claims asserted? They have done this with their eyes open to all the ap parent extravagances and absurdities of the system. Their reasoning led them to the conclusion that a mind which could pour forth, through thousands of pages, such a wealth of wisdom, could not be, at the same time, the victim of the most pitiable delusions. They were accordingly induced to turn their attention to the disclosures bearing upon the other life, and submit them to a more rigid analysis, and here too, a nearer inspection revealed to them a character of truth, which grew incessantly upon them the further their exami nation was pushed, for they perceived in the elemental principles of their own nature the warrant for every grand development made in the Memorabilia.

And why, I would ask, is not this the legitimate course to be pursued in an inquiry ostensibly of so much moment? Is there any other which really does justice to the subject? Are you satisfied, upon review, with the soundness of the reasons which deter you from acceding to the claims of the New Dispensation? You speak of Swedenborg's works as one of the mightiest achievements of the human soul and brain," and if any should call it "the mightest," you would not dispute with him. But then you go on to say that 'many others, such as Theremier, Jacob Boehme (Behmen), Bunyan, etc., have done enough in the same line (bating the philosophy) to convince you that a thoroughly trained, well-stored, highly endowed, superlatively vigorous German mind, fond of truth, and capable of the interior enlargement and expansion produced by disease, or mesmeric influence voluntarily induced, could have wrought out his works.” “ Bating the philosophy" --ah, indeed! That is an abatement worth mentioning; for what is the philosophy in this case, but the truth. If it be not a true philosophy, what is it but empty speculation, or idle dreaming? By your own showing, is not Swedenborg differenced from the above named visionaries by propounding to the world what is justly to be entitled a philosophy, in contradistinction from vagaries and dreams-albeit, we have no disposition to detract from the theosophy of Behmen? Even if you should rejoin that Swedenborg's philosophy was not a demonstratively true philosophy, yet you have given it credit enough as a rational and plausible system to constitute an obligation to make yourself thoroughly acquainted with it. No man can consistently pronounce a system to be the "mightiest achievement of the human soul," and yet remain ignorant of its essential contents or constituents. You are morally bound not only to study the case, but to study the writings which give to the case all its peculiarity and importance.

The singular inconsequence of your reasoning appears strikingly in your mode of accounting for my own conversion to the faith I now hold. "In the first place you wrought out an independent investigation of the doctrine of the Resurrection, and found confirmation in every point from Swedenborg." Very well; if I were satisfied with the truth of my own conclusions on that subject, and subsequently found them abundantly confirmed by Swedenborg, had I not ample reason for considering him as in the truth also? Could I have been faithful to the laws of evidence to come to any other result? But, "In the second place, your work on the Millennium, prepared you to look for the Second Advent of the Redeemer at a time coeval with the introduction of Swedenborg's system." And what then? Was my expectation built upon a sound or a hollow basis? If I had previously settled it in my own mind, that the event of the Second Advent was to be fixed to the era specified, and I found in Swedenborg's writing the declaration of a coming of the Lord at that period which answered, in my view, all the demands of the sacred predictions, had I not another valid reason for listening to and acceding to his assumptions as a Divine messenger? Again, after speaking of my experience or observation in regard to vaious psychological phenomena, you ask, "Has any other living man of equal intelligence and scholarship with yourself, so much to predispose him in favor of any system of truth as you have had to ally you to Swedenborg? Can I be surprised that you are where you are ? Can you expect another to follow without a similar conjuncture, an unprecedented one, or by a process different from your own?" Most assuredly I expect it, for, as thousands have preceded me in the adoption of these views without my experience, why should not thousands follow? Besides, you must allow me to insist that it was not these collateral coincidences that achieved my conviction, but the intrinsic truth of the disclosures themselves. The circumstances to which you allude, no doubt, operated to direct and determine my attention to the writings themselves; but when this was done, the work was done. It was the positive and serious examination of the system at its fountain head that effected my conversion, and the same process, I will venture to predict, will effect With sentiments of high regard, I remain yours, &c., G. B.

yours.

MISCELLANY.

SWEDENBORG VINDICATED.

The following candid and generous testimonial appeared some time since in "The Church Times," an Episcopalian paper, though the Editor has very carefully headed it with a disclaimer of responsibility for the opinions or statements of correspondents. We have no idea of the source from which it emanates, nor do we know any thing more, than is to be gathered from the reply, of the tenor of the communication which called it forth. It is dated Baltimore.

MR. EDITOR,

Reverend and Dear Sir I take the liberty of calling your attention to an article which appeared in your useful paper of Aug. 17, 1848, headed "Swedenborgians in the United States," in which a number of charges are preferred against Emanuel Swedenborg, so completely and utterly destitute of truth, that I think they should be exposed and corrected. It is there said, "Swedenborg stated, that the year 1852 is to be decisive of the destiny of his Church. If its doctrine be not then extensively embraced, it is to be accounted as false." Now, my dear sir, I have been more or less conversant with his writings, both philosophical and theological, for nearly fifty years; and I assure you, I have never therein met with the most distant hint at such a sentiment, nor do I believe that any such assertion can be found in any of his voluminous works, nor that such an expression ever fell from his lips to any one upon earth; for, in speaking of the Church, he uniformly styles it the Lord's Church, not his; and it is certain, that he never attempted to raise a Church, or a sectarian establishment, nor were either he or his writings ever made use of for such purpose,

by any one, during his life. As to the Doctrines promulgated in his Theological Works being extensively embraced, that has already taken place, long before the year 1852, for they have been for many years extensively circulated, read and embraced throughout the whole Christian world. They have been translated into almost every language in Christendom, and received and embraced by many both of the clergy and laity in nearly every country in Europe. In England, many of the Regular Clergy of the Established Church, have cordially embraced them, and preach them to their respective congregations.

It is also stated by your writer. respecting Emanuel Swedenborg, that "he rejected a large portion of the Scriptures as not inspired;" "and he also rejected most of the leading doctrines of the Orthodox system, such as the Trinity, the Atonement, Justification by Faith, Regeneration by the Spirit of God, and the Resurrection of the Body." These assertions, my dear sir, are as wide from the truth, as the East is distant from the West; for the whole burthen of his Theology, from beginning to end, strenuously inculcates all those "leading doctrines" of our holy Catholic Church. As to his "rejecting a large portion of the Scriptures," the real fact is, that he rejected none; but out of the 66 Books contained in our Bible, he quotes liberally from 44 of them in illustration and proof of his own explications. And as to the comparison of his system with that of Mohammed, the idea is perfectly ridiculous.

The writer of this communication hopes it may not be considered obtrusive, its object being not to elicit or excite discussion, but merely to correct misrepresentations, and to vindicate the character of an illustrious member of our own Church, for such was Swedenborg. His father was Bishop of West Gotha in the kingdom of Sweden; the son must therefore have been born in the Church, most probably bap tised in the Church, brought up in the Church, most assuredly lived in the Church during a long and protracted life, and finally died in the Church, receiving the holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper from the hands of an Episcopal Clergyman on his death-bed. Though the son of a Bishop, he never entered himself into holy Orders, but continued an humble and useful layman to the end of his days. Please to excuse, my dear sir, the liberty I have taken, and believe me to be Reverently and affectionately yours,

AN EPISCOPALIAN.

A

༣

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

1. THE ANIMAL KINGDOM, considered Anatomically, Physically, and Philosophically. By EMANUEL SWEDENBORG. Translated from the Latin, by JAMES JOHN GARTH WILKINSON. Two volumes in one. St. Clairsville, Ohio: Published by J. H. Wil

liams. 1851.

We have here an achievement worth recording. The great work of our great author on the "Animal Kingdom"-which, by the way, as he treats it, embraces only the human body—actually stereotyped and published in an inland town in the State of Ohio. And what is more, the entire credit of the publication is due to private and unprofessional enterprise. What no bookseller in the country would have undertaken has been assumed by a humble citizen of the West, and in the face of great difficulties carried through to its consummation. This worthy individual has undertaken the work, not because he had wealth to lavish upon the enterprise, but because he had an ardent zeal for the propagation of those spiritual truths which find a scientific basis in this wonderful exposé of the economy of our frames. In view of the immense labor and outlay which the getting up of such a work must necessarily have involved, we cannot but feel that Mr. Williams has laid an obligation on the whole New Church in our land, to come forward and lend him all the aid in their power in giving circulation to this priceless volume. The stereotyping must, we should judge, have cost several thousand dollars, to say nothing of paper, press-work, and binding. The English edition has been for several years out of print, and a very high price demanded for such occasional copies as might chance to be met with. The work is now put within the reach of all who may be disposed to pay somewhat less than half the price of the English, that is to say, $4, or perhaps $3 75.

The execution of the work typographically is not all that we could have desired. A mistake, we think, was made in adopting the same type for the text and the notes, and the press-work evidently has not been well done, as the impression is obscure. But we do not forget that the work was not intended by its present publisher for the metropolitan market, and therefore is not to be judged by a metropolitan standard. It is got up in plain substantial style, and in no other style could it have answered the end of cheapness, which the publisher had in view. Still, we have our fears that even New Church eyes may have acquired so much of fastidiousness from the prevalent style of book-printing and book-binding, that they will be too little attracted to the present re-print to make their interest in it remunerative to the publisher. This we should deeply regret, for we think that the enterprise of Mr. W. lays a valid claim to the considerate patronage of the men of the New Church. Otis Clapp, Boston, John Allen and Fowlers & Wells, New-York, and E. Mendenhall, Cincinnati, O., have the work constantly on sale.

2. THE SPIRITUAL EXPOSITION of the Apocalypse; as derived from the writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg, illustrated and confirmed by Ancient and Modern authorities. By the Rev. AUGUSTUS CLISSOLD, M. A. In four volumes. London.

1851.

The Apocalypse of John, though confessedly the obscurest book in the Sacred Canon, has been, from the first, the most abundantly commented upon. The bibli

ography of the book has already become voluminous. It is now enlarged by the addition of the four goodly volumes which we have the pleasure of announcing to our readers as published, and in the market. They constitute a most valuable accession to the department of sacred literature, and viewed as the product of a N. C. pen, and devoted to the confirmation of the N. C. exegesis of the Apocalypse, we contem plate the work with an honest pride. Mr. Clissold's two previous volumes—“ A Review of the Principles of Apocalyptical Interpretation,"--had prepared us for a sequel of no ordinary interest, but we confess to the agreeable surprise which has attended our perusal, thus far, of these elaborate pages. We are amazed at the extent of reading which has accumulated such a stupendous mass of illustrative matter, all going more or less directly to establish the soundness of Swedenborg's exposition of this remarkable book. Our own studies of the Apocalypse, in former days, had taken us over a pretty extensive range of its literature, but we now perceive what a vast terra incognita we had left wholly unexplored, and how rich are the testimonies to a spiritual sense of these prophetic oracles which probably would never have been presented to the view of the N. C., but for the indefatigable labors of Mr. Clissold. Even had they been discovered by others, the probabilities are extremely small that they would have been made available to the Church, as the inevitable expense of publica tion, coupled with the limited sphere of sale, would have deterred all the houses, great and small, from embarking in the enterprise. In the present case, we cannot but recognize a peculiarly favoring providence, in the union of mental taste to prosecute, and worldly ability to publish, the researches contained in this work.

The plan which the author has adopted is undoubtedly the best for his purpose. He makes the shorter or summary expositions of Swedenborg in the Apocalypse Revealed, the basis of his illustrative citations, which occupy the place of the fuller interpretations given by Swedenborg of each verse and phrase in every consecutive verse throughout every chapter. The authorities thus adduced are collected from

an immense variety of sources, Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, and all bearing upon the interpretation given by Swedenborg, and disclosing affinities and parallelisms, more or less obvious, with its general tenor. The following may serve as a specimen of the method which prevails throughout the work.

"SWEDENBORG, 'APOCALYPSE REVEALED,' chapter xi., verse 1;

"And there was given me a reed like unto a rod,' signifies, that the faculty and power of knowing and seeing the state of the church in heaven and in the world was given him."

"Haymo, Apocalypse, chap. xi. ;

Sacred

By a reed we must understand that which is produced by a reed, that is, Divine Scripture; because the ancients wrote with a reed. Whence also the reed itself is not without meaning; but it is said to be like unto a rod. For in the rod we are to understand the rectitude of the Sacred Scripture, in which there is no lie, no error, as in the books of philosophers, Jews, and heretics, whose doctrine is full of falsehood. Scripture, however, is in every part of it straight, and therefore is rightly compared to a rod, as the Psalmist says; "A straight rod is the rod of thy kingdom." Otherwise: kings carry a rod in their hand as a sign of their power, by which is expressed their regal power.""

"So Primasius, Apocalypse xi., 1, who likewise observes that the reed is rightly said to be like unto a rod, because the rod designates firmness by reason of its natural strength, which is to be referred to the strength of faith.' Similar is the interpretation both of reed and rod by Ambrose Ansbert. See here Gagneus."

"Marloratus, Apocalypse, chap. xi. 1;

"After that John is instructed how great the force of God's word is, commission is given him to view, judge, and discern the church, which is the very temple of God ac