By the "rending of the vail" was also signified the enlightening and elevating of the rational faculty in man. Hitherto this faculty had been vailed by the appearances of truth, and by the fallacies of the senses. It could not see interior things, but was, as to its spiritual vision, in shadows and darkness. A divine power from the Lord in his Humanity came to the deliverance of this faculty; new life was breathed into its feeble activities; its vision was recruited and quickened with new life and light, and it could now "spiritually discern" the things which relate to the Lord, his Word, and his Kingdom. The "oldness of the letter" could be distinguished from the "newness of the spirit," and all things recorded in Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, are seen to have had an especial relation to the Lord, and to have received their especial fulfilment in the Divine works of Redemption and Glorification which he accomplished.

The "rending of the vail" represented also the universality of the Christian religion. The partition-wall between the Jew and the Gentile was now broken down. Hitherto the temple at Jerusalem had been the place where the Lord was especially worshipped; "hither the tribes went up." But now a temple could be erected on every hill, in every town, and in every village. All who worship "in spirit and in truth," would offer grateful sccrifices to the Divine Father, in whatever place, whether in Canaan, or Britain, California, or Japan; whether "in the closet" or at the altar, the incense of sincere prayer would be equally acceptable to the Father of Mercies; in short, every heart could become an altar, and every mind a temple consecrated to the worship and service of the Lord in his Divine Humanity, the "new and living way to the Holy of Holies."

MINUS.

SWEDENBORG AND THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

We have received a somewhat coarsely expressed complaint against the article inserted under the above head in page 97. It is signed CATHOLICUS. But the writer having given his real name and address, we are laid under some restraint in entering fully into a reply to his allegations. The article alluded to was admitted because there appeared a necessity to explain and substantiate the passage of Swedenborg referred to therein. But it by no means follows, that we should engage in or admit controversies upon the points

agitated between the Romish and Protestant Churches. It is with the defence and elucidation of the doctrines of the New Church that we have chiefly to do.

66

CATHOLICUS Complains that the statement that the Romish clergy interfere with the laity in their reading of the Scriptures, is a misrepresentation; but, to our perceptions, his own statements and documents actually go to confirm the opinion to which he objects. And how does he prove that Swedenborg was in error, in stating that the Catholics forbid the Holy Scriptures to be read by the laity"? By citing a papal rescript, it is presumed the earliest to the same effect that he could find, put forth by Pope Pius VI., who became pope three years after Swedenborg's death! This document says,— "The faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures, for these are most abundant sources, that ought to be left open to every one." Certainly these words, if they were a fair representation of the principles and uniform practice of the Romish Church, would go to convict the Protestant world, at least since 1778 (the date of the rescript), of bearing false witness. But the case is otherwise. The anathemas issued against the British and Foreign Bible Society and their agents by the Roman power, alone have virtually cancelled this rescript, and have proved, that the Romish Church does interfere, not by advice merely, but by severe penalties, in the reading of the Scriptures by the laity, thus virtually depriving them of the freedom which the rescript quoted appears to allow them. And, observe, it was not a Protestant version merely, but a Romish version, which was offered by the Bible Society, and forbidden to be circulated.

And why does CATHOLICUS attempt to prove that the Romish Church allows the Scriptures to be read by the laity, by presenting to us a proclamation of one of its popes? Because the pope,absolute in will and infallible in judgment,-is the church; and the church is the pope! But popes change their minds; and popes have contradicted popes, and thus the pretence of unchangeable doctrine enjoyed by "the spotless spouse of Christ," (as CATHOLICUS calls the Romish Church) is a mere pretence. The principle and practice of the Romish Church is, that the authority of the pope for the time being is that of the church. Whatever act any pope does, is governed by this principle. Consequently the liberty specific (as W. M. contends) is always subject to nullification by the bondage general to the papal power in which the Romanists are constantly held. To shew how little dependence can be placed upon

any privilege granted under such a variable authority, we give the following quotation from Mosheim :

*

*

*

"Æneas Sylvius Peccolomini succeeded to the pontificate in 1458, under the title of Pius II. After having [prior to this] vigorously defended against the pontiffs, the dignity and prerogatives of general councils, he ignominiously renounced these generous principles upon his accession to the pontificate, and acted in direct opposition to them during the whole course of his reign. In the year 1460, he denied publicly that the pope was subordinate to a general council, and even prohibited all appeals to such a council, under the severest penalties. In the year 1463, he published a solemn retractation of all that he had written in favour of the Council of Basil, [before he became pope] and declared that himself as Æneas Sylvius was a damnable heretic, but as Pius II. he was an orthodox pontiff "!!

So much, then, for the assertion of the infallibility of "the spotless spouse of Christ," alias the infallibility of the pope as God's vicegerent, possessing the keys of Peter, with power to open and shut heaven.

It is really very strange that modern Catholics should require us to forget all we have read in history about Romish tyranny, because it suits the policy of the papal power in our day to act contrary to what was done in former times by former pontiffs. We are required to forget that the disciples of Wycliffe and others were tortured and slain by Romanists, because they preferred to read the Scriptures in the language of their own country, instead of having them in Latin, and thus confined to the comparatively learned. Again we must quote Mosheim, when speaking of occurrences in the 16th century, and leave CATHOLICUS to settle his account with the Protestants who follow that learned writer:

"As soon as the popes perceived the remarkable detriment their authority had suffered from the accurate interpretations of the Holy Scriptures that had been given by the learned, and the perusal of these Divine oracles, which was now grown more common among the people, they left no methods unemployed that might discourage the culture of this most important branch of sacred erudition. They permitted their champions to indulge themselves openly in reflections injurious to the dignity of the Sacred Writings, and to declare publicly, that the edicts of the pontiffs, and the records of oral tradition, were superior in point of authority to the express language of the Holy Scriptures. The ancient Latin translation of the Bible commonly called the Vulgate, though it abounds with innumerable gross errors, and, in a great variety of places, exhibits the most shocking barbarity of style, and the most impenetrable obscurity with respect to the sense of the inspired writers, was declared by a solemn decree of the Council of Trent, an authentic translation. In the same Council a severe law was enacted with respect to all interpreters and expositors of the Scriptures, by which they were forbidden to explain the sense of these Divine books, in matters relating to faith and practice, in such a manner as to make them speak a different language from that of the church and the ancient doctors. The same law further declared, that the church alone, that is, its ruler, the Roman pontiff, had the right of determining

the true meaning and signification of Scripture. The Church of Rome persisted that the Holy Scriptures were not composed for the multitude, but only for their spiritual teachers; and, of consequence, ordered these Divine records to be taken from the people in all places where it was allowed to execute its imperious commands."

CATHOLICUS will see that our correspondent W. M. is borne out in his statements and views by Dr. Mosheim, a writer generally trusted by Protestants. As to the printed advertisement of the "Douay Bible," which CATHOLICUS has enclosed to us, in order to prove to our readers that the Romish Church does not interfere with the reading of the Bible by the laity, we find in it the expression by a Romish bishop of his "sanction and approbation." Nothing, then, it appears, can be allowed to the poor laity but by priestly authority. And is not this "Douay Bible" a translation (possibly somewhat modified) from the Vulgate so disparagingly spoken of by Dr. Mosheim ?

Our objection to the Romish system is mainly different from that commonly urged against it by its most active opponents. They quarrel with its doctrines; but we go further back, and, no matter what its doctrines may be in time past, present, or to come, we quarrel with it as a cunningly devised and artfully supported SYSTEM OF SPIRITUAL OR ECCLESIASTICAL DESPOTISM, utterly repugnant to the proper exercise and development of heaven's best gifts to man, liberty and rationality. Scarcely less averse to this despotic system should we be, if its doctrines (were this possible) perfectly agreed with those of Emanuel Swedenborg. And this, according to our understanding of W. M., appeared to be the ground assumed by him; and to this we add that even that noble affection, the love of truth, is a nullity, unless grounded in the hallowed love of liberty. That this objection to Romanism is not the ground assumed by the Evangelical opponents of the Romish doctrines, is, we fear, owing to the sad fact, that they would gladly get transferred to themselves the same kind of authority which the papal hierarchy possesses.*

* W. M. relates an anecdote, that he was once conversing with a Roman Catholic, his only fellow passenger in a coach between Loughborough and Leicester, when a zealous Church-Evangelical, a fellow-townsman of the Romanist, entered the vehicle, upon which the latter, addressing the new comer, said, (alluding to W. M.) "This gentleman says that the Church has no authority to decree what is right in controversies of faith," to which the other replied, (conformably to the 20th of the XXXIX. Articles of his church) "Undoubtedly our church has authority in controversies of faith." "No, Sir, not your church, but my church," interrupted the Romanist; and thus the two having split into opposite parties, W. M. proceeded to shew the advantage he enjoyed as a reader of Swedenborg, in settling the question at issue between them.

The question which is most constantly agitated by Romanists in order to draw Protestants into their communion, is the authority of the church to settle all questions arising out of the Bible. They set forth the "repose" (to use an expression of CATHOLICUS) which is found in letting "the church" think for the laity; the happiness enjoyed (after thinking upon the Romish church authority and bowing to it) in thinking or concluding upon all doctrinal subjectsby proxy. This is certainly a theme on which much ingenious reasoning may be, and is, exhibited by Romish advocates; and, unfortunately, there are but few who are able to judge between just reasonings and plausible reasonings. There are very few who can see whether an argument sets out legitimately; or, supposing this to be seen, who can detect where it begins to diverge towards a wrong conclusion. This is the sole origin of the success of the Romanists in obtaining converts. The "repose" offered is, also, a bait that takes much with minds fond of reasoning on such external subjects as the authority of the church, but averse to, and thence incapable of, reasoning on the really spiritual and interior subjects of the Divine Word, upon which the Romish despotism takes to itself the exclusive authority of deciding.

We conclude with sincerely expressing our wish that, in the course of Providence, something may occur to interrupt the “ re.. pose" of CATHOLICUS, in the form of wholesome doubts; and should these occur, we respectfully recommend him not to go for their solution to his despotic church, but to lift up his heart to the Lord Jesus Christ, in the words of David, "Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death!"-We only add that, deeming the parallel CATHOLICUS has drawn to the New Church endeavouring to correct erroneous deductions from Swedenborg, to be no parallel at all, we cannot trouble our readers with it for the mere purpose of shewing it to be worthless. EDITOR.

THOUGHTS OF PASCAL ON THE WORD.

PERHAPS it may interest some of the readers of the Magazine to know what ideas a French Catholic writer, of two hundred years ago, had upon the spiritual sense of the Word. With this view I have attempted to translate a few brief passages from the “Thoughts of Pascal," who, though unable to rise above the falsities of the church in whose bosom he was educated, appears to have had some