its usefulness, by promoting its eirculation amongst all who love the truth, and desire to do it. From the nature of the subjects which this "Letter" so well discusses, as well as from the position both of the writer and of the person to whom it is addressed-both being alumni of the University of Oxford Its voice is entitled to be heard, It will, moreover, we cannot but not apparent, perhaps, at first; -it cannot fail to attract attention. and doubtless it will be listened to. believe, be productive of much good; not shewing itself on the surface, but rather working below it with a silent but effective power. It is especially a work which ought to be carefully read, and well reflected upon, by the members of the New Church themselves. For it reads us all a most important lesson. It sets before us the brightness of that light which New Church truth reveals to us. It contrasts that brightness, in a meek and humble spirit, with the obscurity which so generally envelopes those subjects most important for man to know. And thus, while it shews us our great and precious privileges, it reminds us of our corresponding duties. It brings home to us most foreibly that all-important truth, upon which our doctrines so constantly and so strongly insist-that knowledge even of Divine subjects is then only of value, when it leads to the love and the practice of what the truth teaches. “I do not admit," says the Rev. T. L. Harris, in his striking sermon on "The Philosophy of Decay," "because a man has a higher theoretical truth than his neighbour, that he is any more a member of the Church of God than his neighbour-not by any means. On the other hand, as I have said so often in your hearing before, a man may have very little truth, and, if he only works out that truth, he is God's servant. A man may have the world full of truth, and if he make use of that truth simply to pander to self-love, he is not God's servant at all, but Satan's slave, and humanity's most bitter foe." It has often struck us very forcibly that this is a lesson which the receivers of New Church truth are very apt to forget, especially in the earlier stages of their reception. It is, in fact, human nature to be so. We should, therefore, be well upon our guard that such a state does not grow upon us. We see so much around us which is obscure and unintelligible, but which New Church truth enlightens and explains, that we require to watch carefully lest we rest satisfied with the mere light of truth, and contrast, in a spirit of much self-complacency, our own condition with that of mankind in general. We are, then, convinced that an attentive perusal of this "Letter” will not only tend to correct this evil, but will also remind us of very much besides that we are likely to forget in our estimate of New Church privileges. We sincerely and gratefully confess that Mr. Clissold's labours, in this instance again, have been a source of much gratification—and, we trust, benefit also to ourselves. We can, therefore, the more cordially and confidently recommend them to others. We will, then, on the present occasion discharge, to some little extent at least, the agreeable duty of pointing out some of the striking parts of this "Letter." We do so not with any idea whatever that we can give an analysis of its contents. We rather select a point or two for comment, to induce our readers to examine the Work for themselves. And should our remarks meet the eye of any who are ignorant of the doctrines enunciated in the writings of Swedenborg, or who may imagine, as many do-Archbishop Whately amongst the number-that much in those writings, that part, for instance, which refers to the spiritual world, is of a merely speculative character, with small reference to our life and conduct, we would earnestly invite their attention to the subject. Archbishop Whately has long enjoyed a high reputation as a clear and forcible writer, stating his views, whatever may be the points he handles, with great force and precision. He is considered to be remarkable for taking a common-sense view of his subject, and making that view intelligible and attractive to others. In these respects he resembles Paley, whose "Evidences of Christianity" have so long been a popular work. The Archbishop, in his "Peculiarities of the Christian Religion," speaks of Swedenborg as a "pretended prophet;" observing "that he professed to have been favoured with most copious and distinct revelations, to have visited the celestial abodes, and to have conversed with various orders of beings; of all which he gives minute descriptions. Yet, though his followers insist much on the importance of believing in this pretended revelation, it would, I believe, be difficult for them to state even any one point, in which a man is called upon to alter his conduct, his motives, or his moral sentiments, in consequence of such belief. The system furnishes abundant matter of faith, and food for curiosity; but has little or no intelligible reference to practice." And in a note on this passage-which appeared in a subsequent edition, and in reply to a remonstrance-the Archbishop thus explains himself: "I was not designing any attack on that, or any other religious persuasion; nor do I deny its including the fundamentals of Christianity." [First Series, p. 147.] The ground, then, which the archbishop takes is this, that Sweden borg's revelations-that is, his descriptions of the spiritual world, are non-practical; but that his doctrines, for anything the Archbishop has to allege to the contrary, INCLUDE THE FUNDAMENTALS OF CHRISTIANITY." Upon these points Mr. Clissold joins issue with the Archbishop, and shews, as we think, most clearly, and beyond the shadow of a doubt: 1. That Swedenborg's descriptions of the spiritual world are eminently practical; and, 2. that, if Swedenborg's doctrines contain the fundamentals of Christianity, such fundamentals are entirely at variance with the fundamentals of Christianity as held by the church to which the Archbishop belongs. As the Archbishop directs attention to the question of practical utility, with reference to a portion of Swedenborg's writings, Mr. Clissold requests permission to do the same with regard to the received doctrines of the Tripersonality of the divine nature, pointing out their bearing upon the object of worship. It is, indeed, most painful to read the statements quoted by Mr. Clissold on this point, from divines of the Church of England, who are regarded of the highest authority. From them, notwithstanding their assertions of the Unity of the Object of Worship, no other conclusion can be drawn, than that there are THREE Objects of Worship clearly and distinctly recognised. Towards the close of these painful quotations, Mr. Clissold gives, at p. 36, the following from Dr. Waterland (Works, vol. 5, p. 33) : : "Put the case, then, that the three Divine Persons of the Trinity are equally divine, and that a man has been trained up to esteem them accordingly; it cannot be doubted but that he goes out of the world more fitly disposed in that respect to be taken into their friendship, and best qualified, other circumstances being equal, for the beatific enjoyment." It would perhaps be impossible to state the doctrine of Tritheism in a grosser form; and, as Dr. Waterland refers to the beatific enjoyment in connexion with it, Mr. Clissold feels himself compelled to bring one of the alleged non-practical revelations of Swedenborg's, to bear upon this dogma of Athanasius. "I spake with Athanasius: he says that he knows not his own God: that he is seeking for the Father, seeking for the Son, and seeking for the Holy Spirit, thus for Three, and he finds them nowhere: accordingly, inasmuch as he could not find his own God, he complained of his lot sadly. The reason is, that he had confirmed himself in his opinion concerning Three Persons; while others, who have only heard of these things from his Faith, and have not confirmed themselves in them, as he did, if they have lived a life of charity, are ultimately led to acknowledge the Lord for their only God. Wherefore it is of the Providence of the Lord, that there are few who think of Him from that Creed: they only listen to what others say, retain it but slightly, and do not confirm themselves in it."* [P. 37.] * Translated from Eman, Swedenborgii Diarium Spirituale, n. 5959. Upon this Mr. Clissold very fairly observes: "Now the question is not here, concerning the truth of this narrative; but concerning its practical nature. It is affirmed by Swedenborg, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have no distinct subsistence in the heavens as three Persons; and, consequently, that Three distinct Persons of the Godhead are nowhere to be seen or to be found; and inasmuch as Athanasius had conceived of the Godhead rather from the diversity of Persons, he sought the Godhead under the idea of that diversity; he sought the Truth, that is, from an erroneous principle, and therefore could not find it. Does this case, or does it not, convey a practical lesson?" [pp. 37, 38.] It requires surely but little enlightened perception to see on which side the truth here preponderates. We sincerely trust that the archbishop will be both able and willing to acknowledge it. Mr. Clissold then adduces another case from a Memorable Relation, n. 16 of Swedenborg's True Christian Religion, which is so apposite that we quote it in the abridged form in which he has given it, with a few of his remarks, which follow: "I once observed,' says Swedenborg, 'some persons lately arrived out of the natural World into the spiritual, who were conversing together about the existence of three Divine Persons from eternity.' They were dignitaries of the Church-one of them a bishop,-whose ideas of the Trinity implied three Objects of worship; to whom Swedenborg represents himself as thus replying: 'Is it not a sensuous conception of God the Father, to think that he sits upon a throne with a sceptre in his hand? and of the Son that he is on a throne with a crown upon his head? and of the Holy Ghost, that he also sits upon his throne with a dove in his hand? and, that in obedience to the decrees of the two former, he runs to and fro throughout the whole earth? .... How is it possible when a man is told that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and that each Person by Himself is God, that he should conceive there is only one God? Is there not a contradiction herein that cannot be reconciled? It may indeed be said that they partake of Divinity alike, but to call them one God is highly improper. . . . . But I perceive the true reason why you call the three divine Persons but one God, and insist upon every member of the Church using the same language, notwithstanding you declare each singly and by himself to be God: you are ashamed to contradict herein the common sense and reason of all mankind, which will not allow of more Gods than one; and yet you are not ashamed, while you profess with your lips only one God, to entertain the idea of three in your hearts. On hearing these words the bishop retired with his clerical attendants; and as he went away he turned about and endeavoured to say, 'There is but one God,' but he was not able; inasmuch as his thought drew his tongue back again, and then with open mouth he proclaimed three Gods. All who stood by smiled at the strange sight and departed.' "After a further conversation in the World of Spirits with these metaphysicians, Swedenborg observes: 'There was present at the debate* a certain wise man, who, "Others apart sat on a hill retired, In thoughts more elevate, and reason'd high Paradise Lost, Book ii. when it was ended, said to these three learned disputants: 'I have no inclination to examine this high subject through the medium of such subtle arguments; bat setting these aside, I can see as clear as the light, that in the ideas of your minds there are three Gods; yet, forasmuch as you are ashamed to publish them to the world, for fear of being called madmen and idiots, which would certainly be the case; therefore, to avoid that ignominy, you confess but one God with your lips.' The three disputants gave little attention to these words, continuing firm to their own sentiments; and as they departed they muttered some metaphysical terms which they had learned by rote; whence I perceived that that science was the tripod from which they were desirous to give their answers.' "Such was the result, according to Swedenborg, of a debate in the Spiritual World, on the subject of the Trinity, between certain metaphysical disputants on the one side, and on the other a man of plain common sense. The reason is, that the received doctrine of the Unity of God is said to belong properly to the science of Metaphysics; the doctrine of the Tripersonality, to the Economy or to practical Theology. Concerning the metaphysical Unity of the Divine Nature, the Scriptures are said to be silent; the metaphysical terms therefore uttered by the foregoing disputants, were probably something about co-inherence or circumincession, as the effectual preservative of the Divine Unity; of which common people, nevertheless, obviously know nothing." [pp. 38-40.] In bringing his observations to a close on the question, as to whether there is ONE Object of Worship, or THREE Objects of Worship, acknow. ledged in the common theology, Mr. Clissold thus sums up : "Are there not then confessedly three distinct Objects of divine worship; while yet it is said, that there is but One Sole Object of divine worship? "But who can charge the Ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity with equivocation or fallacy, so long as it pretends to nothing more than to provide 'not a consistent, but a connected statement?'* "How then does the case stand? Swedenborg affirms in his alleged revelations, that all fallacies, equivocations, inconsistencies, in regard to the fundamental ides of God, are exposed to open view in the Spiritual World, where spirits are unable to speak otherwise than as they think. If then we are told by the Church that the three Divine Persons are as distinct as any three human persons, but so united that the union is above our ideas, it is obvious that we have an idea of the distinction, but no idea of the union; so that, to all practical purposes, the union is as though it were not, and the distinction alone remains; and as in the Spiritual World no one can speak but as he thinks, so in that world he who thinks three Gods, however in this world he may say that there is only one, cannot in the Spiritual World even utter the expression One God, but affirms that there are THREE. Hence the spiritual condition of Athanasius. "Are these alleged revelations practical or not?" [pp. 42, 43.] • Mr. Clissold had quoted at p. 41, this extraordinary statement of Mr. Newman: "Much as we may wish it, we cannot restrain the rovings of the intellect, or silence its clamorous demand for a formal statement concerning the Object of our worship. If, e. g., Scripture bids us adore God, and adore His Son, our reason at once asks, whether it does not follow that there are two Gods; and a system of doctrine becomes unavoidable, being framed, let it be observed, not with a view of explaining, but of arranging, the inspired notices concerning the Supreme Being; of providing, not a consistent, but a connected statement."—The Arians of the 4th Century, p. 161. |