why should it be concluded that his Writings, written in a state of perfect health, were the drivellings of a madman? Let his works be judged by their own evidence. But the story was a malignant falsehood, palmed upon Wesley by a Swedish clergyman who afterwards went mad himself in church, and was confined as a lunatic for the remainder of his life. The reflection which Wesley thoughtlessly added about Swedenborg was subsequently condemned by his own words, the authority for which is indisputable. For he declared, before his death, that Jesus Christ was the only God of heaven and earth,1 which is the grand doctrine of all Swedenborg's Writings; but was by no means held in such estimation by Wesley until a few months before his departure. It is only just to Swedenborg's memory, that Wesley's latest sentiments should be set against his former rash conclusions. We are next confronted by the Letters to the Members of the New Jerusalem Church, by Dr. Priestley, in 1791. A New Church place of worship in Birmingham had been consecrated by the Rev. J. Proud, formerly a Baptist minister. Dr. Priestley, a man of considerable learning, who had also distinguished himself as a theologian, attended the opening services, and seemed much interested in inquiring into the doctrines. He accepted an invitation to tea, and possessed himself of several of Swedenborg's works. But his own opinions prevailed, and he prepared a pamphlet with the title given above. This manuscript, however, together with his library, was burnt in the riots which took place the same year. Yet, so bent was Dr. Priestley on his purpose, that he determined to rewrite his letters, and applied to Mr. Robert Hindmarsh for several of the Writings, ironically observing that he might, like some others he had heard of, while reading for the purpose of refutation become a convert. Mr. Hindmarsh perceived the latent feeling of supposed triumph, and answered him with great seriousness: "No, sir; your peculiar sentiments have in all probability gained a fixed form and permanent habitation, not only in your mind, but in every part of your body, even to your tongue, your hands, and fingers." So it proved. The Doctor showed all his ability in his objections. He wrote with the utmost courtesy as a Christian gentleman; but his educated This is clearly proven in the Intellectual Repository, vol. iii. p. 53, 1816-17. opinions were confirmed beyond any sudden change. He saw in redemption a special work of Divine mercy, but not the hand of the Divine Being incarnate. He was satisfied that he had chalked out an insuperable task for the New Church. So he published his Letters, and despatched a copy to Mr. Hindmarsh. Without delay, Mr. Hindmarsh informed the Doctor of his intention to reply. Dr. Priestley acknowledged the note, intimating that in that case he should publish a rejoinder. But in this instance the Doctor failed to have "the last word." After waiting some time, Mr. Hindmarsh called upon Dr. Priestley, who, from his manner, seemed to have forgotten him and all about the Letters; but at length, recollecting himself, he said that it was his intention, if he should publish a second edition of his pamphlet, to answer all objections in an appendix. But the Doctor never again took up his pen on the subject. About the end of the century appeared a violent attack on Swedenborg, in a work, entitled The History of Jacobinism, by the Abbé Baruel. The writer apparently obtained his ideas from a socialistic sect in France, who styled themselves "Illuminés Theosophiqués," scandalously claiming Swedenborg as their authority, and who, in the magniloquent words of the Abbé, were looking for a great revolution, which should sweep from the earth every prince and every king, that the God of Swedenborg might reign uncontrolled over the whole world." Mr. Clowes had little taste for noticing such miserable swagger; but being persuaded to take up his pen, he, in his Letters to a Member of Parliament, exposed the stupid calumny which had audaciously ranked the Herald of the Second Advent as the Apollyon of social order. Having put on the spurs, Mr. Clowes next encountered the Rev. Mr. Grundy, a Unitarian minister, who, in a work on the Doctrines of Christianity, had harangued the members of the New Church on the peculiarities of their faith. Mr. Grundy had probably seen Dr. Priestley's Letters, but not Mr. Hindmarsh's reply; yet his critique on a small work by Mr. Clowes was candid and gentlemanly. Mr. Clowes replied in a noble spirit, defending the Redeemer's deity by the whole tenor of Scripture; and the rationalistic arguments of Mr. Grundy's book called forth a Letter from Mr. Hindmarsh. The amiable poet Crabbe, whom Byron, in his English Bards, eulogizes as "Nature's sternest painter, yet the best,' having picked up the common notions about Swedenborgianism, in his poem, entitled The Borough, indulged his fancy in a satirical picture of New Church people: "Some Swedenborgians in our streets are found, Of Bible mysteries they the keys possess, Assured themselves where wiser men but guess," etc. To this rash caricature, displaying in a gifted clergyman all the prejudice of ignorance, a New Church poet thus retorted in the Sun newspaper : "Thus Satire spoke, and Reason thus replied :- Sends wandering man o'er paths beyond the grave. We hold that purblind zeal of little worth, Which peers at heaven, and stumbling walks on earth. Nor break a Quixote lance against Ithuriel's spear.' "1 I pass over several minor attacks to the Draconic assault of the Rev. J. G. Pike, a Baptist minister of Derby. His work appeared under the spurious title, Swedenborgianism Depicted in its True Colors, more correctly, Swedenborgianism Draped in Flagrant Mockery. At the request of the New Church Conference in 1820, Mr. Hindmarsh again buckled on his armour, and with the same result as in his first encounter. Mr. Pike's refurbished slander about Swedenborg, culled from the Arminian Magazine, was torn to shreds. The gross misrepresentations of doctrine, of the spiritual sense of Scripture, and of the canon of inspiration, with the foul travesties of the work on Conjugial Love, all, one after another, were utterly exposed. The cause of truth demanded the refutation; but as for the author of such rash distortions, well might Mr. Hindmarsh exclaim, "To reason with such a man is obviously a waste of time." It is said of the mythological hydra, that as one head was 1 Intellectual Repository, 1812, p. 53. destroyed another instantly sprang forth. The fable is pregnant with instruction. Mr. Pike had been silenced; but a few years after an assailant of similar animus rose up, in the Rev. J. Beaumont, of the Methodist New Connexion, Norwich, whose Anti-Swedenborg very much resembled Pike restored. But now another champion of the New Church, the Rev. Samuel Noble, was in the field with a potent Antidote. Mr. Beaumont is indebted to the Appeal, called forth by his reckless pages, for the perpetuation of his name. Mr. Noble's work constitutes a grand defence of the New Church for ages to come; and in the last edition Mr. Beaumont is charitably kept as much as possible in the background. Mr. Pike, however, was not yet quite extinct. A Methodist preacher named Roebuck became possessed of a copy of Swedenborgianism in its True Colours, and straightway dressed up the distortion in a composition bearing his own name. This disgraceful assault was repelled in a striking Dialogue by the Rev. J. Bayley (now Dr. Bayley); and two rejoinders, consisting of mere bravado, were also quickly disposed of by the same pen. Swedenborg's work on Conjugial Love has afforded a subject for rash and reckless accusations from the time of Pike in 1820, to Brindley in 1860. Even the first part, which treats of marriage as the highest and holiest union ordained by Infinite Wisdom, has been assailed by popular ignorance and Sadducism; whilst the second part has been wantonly perverted. In the February number of this magazine there is a paper exposing a recent attack of this nature at Melbourne in Australia. These foul charges are a convenient mode of arousing bitter prejudice; yet they always call forth stern correction. Mr. Brindley's assaults resulted in an exhaustive review of the whole question by the late Rev. Mr. Woodman; but, unfortunately, ignorance. and prejudice again start up and repeat the same malignities. During the second half century of the New Church (from the death of Mr. Clowes) there has been, on the whole, a considerable modification in the opposition encountered. Amongst the most distinguished objectors of this period was the late Dr. Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, who, in his Essays on some of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion, hastily concluded' 1 Swedenborg's Doctrine of Marriage an its Opposites. J. Speirs, 36 Bloomsbury Street. that the system [of Swedenborg's Writings] although affording abundant food for curiosity, had little or no intelligible reference to practice. In a work never surpassed for calm reasoning and true charity, the Rev. Augustus Clissold' proved the Archbishop's objection to be utterly destitute of foundation; that, on the contrary, the religious system of Swedenborg is above all distinguished by its practical features. The following remonstrance from this noble work exhibits a just rebuke to the unreasonable charges against the New Church doctrines :— "Here, my lord, I bring to a close my extracts from the Arcana Calestia, and with them my observations on the internal sense of the Word of God, as unfolded by Swedenborg. That these observations will be satisfactory, nay, that they will occasion any serious reflection in the minds of some of my readers, is more than I have reason to anticipate. I know too well the force of prejudice; the determination of our opponents in general, that we shall be wrong at any rate. Do we teach the plainer precepts of the Gospel? What folly to inculcate as part of a new revelation, what every one knew before! Do we unfold the more inward and spiritual truths of the Gospel? We are teaching what it unintelligible and speculative, whereas the Word of God is plain and practical! Do we show the reasonableness of our views of Christian doctrine? It is presumption to introduce reason into Divine mysteries, or to expect to explain them without an express revelation! Do we plead the fact of a revelation? The very supposition of such a thing implies the greatest folly and fanaticism! Do we inculcate doctrines which are old! How absurd to teach them as part of what presumes to be new? Do we teach what is new? For that very reason it must be false ! Do we, like the householder, bring out of our treasure things new and old? We are on this account doubly deluded; for what is new cannot be true, and what is old cannot be new. Verily, we may say, 'Whereunto shall we liken the men of this generation, and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the market-place, and calling one to another, 1 The Practical Nature of the Doctrines and Alleged Revelations of Sweden. borg; a Letter to His Grace the (late) Archbishop of Dublin. By the Rev. Augustus Clissold, M.A. See memoir in the December number of this magazine. |