Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

Emerson affirm that man has life in himself independently of the momentary influx of life into him from God; and because Swedenborg denies this as the direst heresy (since it would make man into a god), that, therefore, the system wants "central spontaneity, and cannot generate individuals"? As to the genius necessary to understand Swedenborg, we can only say, that all that is required to understand him is common sense, and a love of truth; whereas, to understand the above statement, requires a genius equal to the lecturer himself. We have conversed with many upon the subject, and have found none who could understand it. But the fact is, when men think from the mere impulses of their own minds, unenlightened by fixed and guiding principles, they cannot but utter much that is mystical and absurd. It may sound to many, from the oracular manner in which it is uttered, and from its farfetched, obscure nature, as though it were profound, but when it comes to be examined, it is found to be as hollow and as empty as the drum from which the sound proceeded. Swedenborg's system is the opposite to all this; the more interiorly you examine it, the more you enjoy the substance and the marrow of truth.

"The vice of Swedenborg's mind," says the lecturer, "is its theological determination; nothing with him has the liberality of universal wisdom." This is said of his theological, and not of his scientific works. But would it not be strange if, when the author is writing on theology, which should certainly be considered as the most comprehensive of sciences, he were not to give his thoughts a theological determination? What therefore appears to Mr. Emerson to be a vice in Swedenborg, will, to every pious theological student, appear a beauty. Besides, through what science can the "liberality of universal wisdom " be more clearly shewn, than through the science of theology. If the lecturer supposes that Swedenborg's theology is the theology of a sect,—that it is limited to a few imperative dogmas, like the theology of the creeds, he is much mistaken, and cannot have seriously studied a single theological work of the author, whose theology and "liberality of wisdom" thereby developed is as universal as the sphere of goodness and truth itself.

"His cardinal position in morals," says Mr. Emerson, “is, that evils should he shunned as sins; it is more true and healthy," says the lecturer, "to shun evil as evil." Strange that such an objection should be alleged, when every body can see that the Scriptures uniformly teach that great precept as the only way to love God and our neighbour. "How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God!" as in the striking example of Joseph, is the great principle of all practical religion. We may shun evil from the love of self, from the love of the world, and from the love of God;-from the love of self, fearing lest if evil is done, we shall therefore suffer in our reputation, or our life; from the love of the world, fearing lest if evil be committed, our worldly prospects and our property may suffer. But these motives cannot remove a single evil from the heart; they can only prevent it from coming out into open acts of violence. The outside of the cup and platter may thereby be cleansed, especially if we do it under the garb of religion, but the "inside will still remain full of extortion, excess, and all uncleanness." But when we shun evil from the love of God, as a sin against Him, it is then cast out and removed; and our faith, our love, and all our virtues are holy and saving, because there is in them the love of God, from which they spring. "Cease to do evil, and put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes," or to shun evil as sin, is the great principle of all holiness.

But the last point we shall notice, in the lecture by Mr. Emerson, is so strange, and so revolting to all our perceptions of truth and goodness, that we are quite

certain the good sense of the public will see how greatly the solid Scriptural teaching of Swedenborg transcends such abominable statements. "Another dogma," said the lecturer, "growing out of his pernicious [theological] limitations, is his belief in evil spirits and devils; that pure malignity should exist is an absurd proposition; it is atheism. Man, wheresoever thou seest him,-in brothels, gaols, or on gibbets, is on his way upward to all that is good and true." Here is a denial of evil spirits and devils, and consequently a denial of the Word of God, in which the existence of evil spirits is so plainly revealed. How fatal to all the higher spiritual interests of man the teaching of mere rationalism is, must be abundantly evident. What a poor, weak, dark thing this intellect of ours is, when left to itself, and when it throws off the salutary and divine teachings of revealed Truth! The human intellect becomes the cage of every foul and unclean bird,—the dark chamber of abominable beasts, and of creeping things, portrayed on the wall round about, the moment the truth of God's Word is excluded as the light of its life. As to " pure malignity," whatever may be the idea of the lecturer, it is certain that malignity does exist, and that it is the peculiar property of evil to hate what is good, and to be malignantly hostile to every perception of goodness from God. If by "pure malignity" the lecturer means the Manichean doctrine of two independent and equipollent deities, the one pure goodness, and the other pure malignity, we need only say, that neither the Word of God nor Swedenborg teaches such a malignant doctrine. All falsity is God's truth "changed into a lie," and all malignity is God's goodness changed by fallen man into evil. Thus all falsity and evil are the truth and goodness of God perverted and changed into such. If we love evil, we shall shun the light of truth because our deeds are evil; we shall love darkness rather than light, because falsity can only agree with evil, as truth with goodness. Far from this being an absurd proposition and atheism, it is not only the direct teaching of God's Word, but in accordance with the common experience of mankind. But as to the latter part of the above quotation—" Man, wheresoever the see'st him," &c., every mind must be filled with horror at the statement. Whatever may be the meaning of the lecturer, it is too evident that the enunciation of the sentiment is full of danger to the establishment of truth and goodness in the human mind. It loosens every bond of virtue in the mind already too much inclined to licentious conduct, and induces it to cast off every restraint imposed by an internal dictate from within. The declaration seems fraught with the utmost inconsistency; it seems to imply that a man may be rising even whilst he is falling, may be ascending into heaven whilst he is descending into hell. What can be expected as the consequence of such teaching to the multitudes of young minds who heard it, and to the thousands who read it? Better had it been if the lecturer had brought over the yoke and the chains of American slavery, than that he should have imported such a doctrine to our country. It may be demonstrated, not only from Scripture but from reason also, that a man remains such as his governing love is, when he leaves the world, to eternity, according to the divine declaration-" He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still." (Rev. xxii. 11.) Let candid young men follow the advice of the lecturer in reading the theological works of Swedenborg, and, wherever there is the love of truth, we will engage to say they will not readily throw them aside, but will experience a joy of heart such as the light of truth ever imparts to a sincere and reflecting mind.

SWEDENBORG'S CLAIMS UPON THE ATTENTION OF

THE PUBLIC AS A THEOLOGICAL WRITER.

To the Editor of the INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY.
DEAR SIR,

HAVING been an admirer of Mr. Emerson's writings before I was acquainted with those of Swedenborg, and having still the highest respect for his genius and character, I was much interested in the announcement of his lecture on Swedenborg at the Manchester Athenæum. Although on the whole his criticism was such as to produce a highly favourable impression of Swedenborg in the minds of those unacquainted with his writings, yet the praise was not unmixed, and there were several points in which, it appeared to me, that Mr. Emerson was unjust, and not strictly in harmony with his own principles.

First. He complained that Swedenborg had not applied his symbolism to all the objects of nature and social life now existing. He said that the great want of this age,-of all ages,—was the knowledge of the spiritual meaning of all things around us,-that the lack of this knowledge made nature dumb to us, when it ought to be full of a thousand-fold meaning. He stated also that these meanings, which had been dimly and faintly seen by spiritual men in different ages, had been fully revealed to Swedenborg. But he blamed Swedenborg because that when he had this key of knowledge, he used it only to unlock the meaning of those antiquated writings entitled the Holy Scriptures. These writings he considered far too insignificant for such insight to be wasted upon, and Swedenborg ought to have turned to the Book of Nature. Now it appears to me that if, as Mr. Emerson allows, Swedenborg did really possess this spiritual insight, and applied it to the elucidation of the Scriptural writings, this fact must establish beyond doubt the divinity of those writings. To my mind, if doubting respecting their divinity, this would put doubt to flight if once admitted. Only allow that Swedenborg had a spiritual insight into the meaning of these writings, and it follows of course that a spiritual insight was required for their elucidation; for if not, how does Mr. Emerson know that Swedenborg possessed this spiritual insight? If these ancient writings were merely the work of human ingenuity, then human ingenuity might explain them? But Mr. Emerson does not suppose this. He allows Swedenborg to have been endowed with insight into the heart and root of things, and that this insight was exercised by him on these ancient

writings. It follows from Mr. Emerson's views, that the same spiritual insight which was required for the elucidation of these writings might have sufficed for the elucidation of the works of Nature, and consequently that they have the same spiritual basis and origin as the natural objects which he says require elucidation.

It may be said that this is a false view of the matter,—that Mr. Emerson simply blames Swedenborg for giving the spiritual meaning of the single and particular objects named in the Scriptures, and withholding the meaning of the things around us now,-viz., that it is more important for us to know the meaning of a pound-pear or a railway engine, than of a tabernacle, an altar, a curtain, or a ring of a particular kind, a candlestick, or a pair of snuffers of particular pattern, made by command of Moses. But if these things be admitted to have a spiritual meaning in all their minute particulars, the insight into which was equal to an insight which might have penetrated into natural objects, then it follows that the spiritual basis which required to be penetrated was equally deep in both cases, and how Mr. Emerson can then consider these writings unimportant is past comprehension.

Another charge made by Mr. Emerson, was that Swedenborg supposed such a thing as "pure malignity" to exist, by which he seemed to intimate a principle or spirit in direct opposition and antagonism to the spirit of goodness. I am not aware that Swedenborg states any where that any purely malignant spirit or principle exists. So far as I understand the doctrine of Swedenborg, he teaches that all evil is a perversion of good, and all falsehood is a perversion of truth. This is illustrated by the correspondence of wine and vinegar,-the latter, being sour, is but the former (which is sweet) in a perverted state. All life proceeds continually by influx from the Deity, but every spirit having freedom of will, changes the inflowing life into an accordance with its own love and condition, and it is from its own choice that any spirit is in hell;-it is because its delight is there.

Mr. Emerson charges Swedenborg with stereotyping the forms he sees in his visions in the spiritual world. This appears to me peculiarly out of place, after the admission by Mr. Emerson that it is a great truth that every form and every thing symbolizes some spiritual meaning. He has just spoken of the great want of the world being that of the knowledge of the spiritual meanings of these outward things, and when Swedenborg gives an account of the forms under which certain spiritual qualities manifested themselves to him,-thus to all intents and purposes giving the spiritual significations of these forms,-he complains of his stereotyping, for all future ages, his own fugitive impressions.

Mr. Emerson denounced Swedenborg's principle that we should shun evil as sin against God. He said that this was not the right principle from which to shun evil, inasmuch as it led to vain compunction, and life was too short for this. He said that evil was to be shunned as evil, and never mind the sin. Now, although Mr. Emerson may, in his more poetical orations and essays, be excused for uttering denunciations against the world's exaction of consistency from us, yet in a grave and calm critique on writings so important as those of Swedenborg, we ought to expect some adherence to radical principles in moral science. Mr. Emerson himself considers that evil is a negation or privation of good. He says, in the language of an ancient, "evil is good in becoming." As evil is not positive, but a negation, no moral force can spring from it. The moral force is in the love of goodness, and it is from love of the good only that evil can be shunned. Mr. Emerson says that evil is to be shunned because it is evil; but how can this be done but from attraction towards the higher good, in which the positive force resides? It must be because we see something better that we turn aside from the evil before us. To cling to the evil would be a slight to the good. And thus, according to Mr. Emerson's own principles, evil must be shunned from love of good or of God. To say that we must shun evil because it is a negation of good, is at the same moment to put the love of good as the motive power. Why, then, does Mr. Emerson object to Swedenborg's principle, that evil is to be shunned as sin or offence against Supreme Goodness?

If you consider these brief remarks deserving of a place in your valuable periodical, they are at your service. In writing them there has been no feeling towards Mr. Emerson in opposition to that of deep respect and admiration.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

Salford, Nov. 9th, 1847.

E. B.

PRACTICE PERFECTED BY PRAYER.

ONE of the remnants of truth in the fallen church is the opinion, that morality is not accepted with God if it be separated from religion; but it is not seen that religion is nothing except so far as it is manifested in moral action. It is not seen that the connection between religion (in the sense of piety) and morality, is analogous to the connection

« VorigeDoorgaan »