Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

before and after confirmation; and the feeling of restraint, or the apparent impulsive tendency, which is experienced under these circumstances, originates in the fact, that before the new-the adopted principle can be received, one of an opposite quality must be given up, and this can only be accomplished gradually, in proportion to the strength of the determination. The preponderance of inclination towards the chosen principle, over that towards the yielding one, which had been thus far incorporated with the soul, gives the appearance of compulsion, and this feeling will continue to be experienced until the confirmation of the one principle and the rejection of the other is completed. It is at such a juncture that man is again brought into a state of perfect freedom, in which he is made to make choice of other principles, and cherish them until fully established within him,-and so on through life. A principle does not become perfectly a man's own by simply being willed; it belongs to him virtually from the time of choice, but only becomes actually his own when the opposing principle is completely removed, the period between choice and confirmation being occupied in eradicating the one and fixing the other, and the whole process constituting a distinct state. There are two kinds of determinations or acts of choice, viz., primary and secondary; the primary ones are made in perfect freedom, and are necessary for the commencement of a state, the secondary originate in these, and are necessary for the continuation and completion of such state. The primary acts of the will take place in the very inmost of the voluntary principle, and are thus entirely removed from the perceptions of others; for it is only in this condition that true freedom can be enjoyed: but the secondary acts of the will are internal or external, according to their relation to the primary,—those resulting immediately from it being the inmost, and those occurring near the termination of a state being the outermost. In this way man is continually forming state upon state by his free-will, and, like the moon in her course, is forming circles in his progress, which perpetually vary from each other.

The primary determinations of the will are attended with much thought and anxious reflection, during which the voluntary principle is in equipollence between good and evil, and there is no bias either to one or the other; but when a new principle is chosen, the equipollence is lost and a bias is formed, and continues until the completion of the state;-thus all secondary determinations derive their life, energy, and power from the primary, and, through their means, the subject of them deliberately yields to all its purposes. Now it is between the above and confirmation that the apparent compulsion is experienced, or, in other

words, a stronger inclination is felt to one principle than another, because the chosen principle becomes at once the ruling power,—it is the chief object loved, and every after effort will tend thitherwards, until it is firmly secured. But when this takes place the appearance of compulsion vanishes, that equilibrium is attained from which new advances may be made, new resolves, new determinations, each passing through the process we have endervoured to describe, and so on perpetually.

Thus every feeling that seems to indicate the absence of those powers of freedom which constitute man, must, when deeply traced and narrowly examined, not only prove harmonious with this important doctrine, but tend very powerfully to its confirmation, since the very appearance of compulsion has its origin in the power of willing, and the strength of that will in tending towards the objects of its choice. For while in the world man is ever preserved in freedom by the Lord, and though the acquired principle is identified with him, and must prove obstructive of all change, be that acquired principle good or evil, yet the freedom is entire, through means which are under the special guidance of Providence. Not so, however, when he leaves this world; for when the body is put off, the circumstances are removed by which he was previously held in such freedom. Manchester.

SWEDENBORG AND THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.

To the Editor of the NEW JERUSALEM MAGAZINE.
SIR,

Ar the request of the inquirer, I send you the following letter from me in reply to his, for insertion in your pages, if considered suitable, together with his letter which gave rise to it.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

SIR,-Although an entire stranger to you personally, I take the liberty of encroaching a little on your valuable time, and hope you will excuse this freedom.

6

"A copy of Swedenborg's little work entitled The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine,' has lately been lent to a neighbour of mine, a zealous Papist. In a state of great excitement, he brought it to me, and read a portion of the Art. No. 8, in which the author expresses himself thus:—I say the Churches in Christendom, by which I would N. S. No. 87.-VOL. VIII.

H

be understood to mean, the Reformed or Evangelical Churches, but not the Popish or Roman Catholic Church, inasmuch as that is no part of the Christian Church; because wherever the true Christian Church is, there the Lord is worshiped, and His Word is read; whereas amongst the Roman Catholics, they worship themselves instead of the Lord, forbid the Holy Scriptures to be read by the laity,' &c.

"My neighbour asserted that Swedenborg's statement above is a palpable falsehood, and that he knew it, and contemptuously asked whether he had been so informed from heaven.

"Now, Sir, I beg you will have the kindness to favour me with some information confirmatory of Swedenborg's assertion that the Roman Catholics worship themselves instead of the Lord.' I apprehend that the whole body of Papists, laity as well as clergy, is alluded to here. I acknowledge my deficiency of evidence on this subject. My neighbour will not admit, what is certainly a fact, that what is said above respecting the prohibition of the reading of the Holy Scriptures by the laity, is true.

[ocr errors]

At any time, dear Sir, that is convenient and agreeable to you, I shall be obliged by the favour of a reply. This I request, as well for my own satisfaction, as to be able to vindicate the character of our illustrious author.

[ocr errors]

10th December, 1846.

[ocr errors]

DEAR SIR,-In reply to your inquiry of the 5th instant, First, as to the sense in which Swedenborg used the words in N. J.D. n. 8. He affirms that "the Roman Catholics worship themselves." Does he mean, what these words by themselves might imply, that each Roman Catholic is individually a self-worshipper? Certainly not. He adds, "They forbid the Word to be read by the people." Now the word "they," applied to the latter sentence, shews the proper sense intended in the previous sentence, namely, that the whole Roman Catholic Church sanctions the worship of certain Roman Catholics: but more on this point presently.

The whole Roman Catholic Church, Swedenborg asserts, forbids the Word to be read by the people, by which he means, that the hierarchy and the priesthood take upon themselves to determine, and the laity give their consent, as to what translation shall be read,-in cases where it is allowed to be read at all,-while the power is also assumed to forbid every translation to be read by persons who are thought by the priest not fit to be entrusted with reading by themselves. In regard to this much contested point, do the Roman Catholics allow the Word to be read or

not? It is certain that they do not allow the laity to read at their own will, or without priestly interference,-they allow it where they cannot safely hinder it; and especially in Protestant countries; and not otherwise. There is in fact endless shuffling in the matter, by the Romanists, in their controversies with Protestants. I think we may as well be content to throw ourselves on this point into the scale with the universal Protestant Church, which agrees with Swedenborg in this charge of forbidding the laity to read the Word, that is, except when allowed to do so by the priest, and refer your Papist objector to the thousand charges made by Protestants, and answers given by them to the Catholics, when they bring the rebutting charge of "false witness." I am not unacquainted with the Catholic controversy. I inquired personally of Prior Wolfrey (not now the Prior), at the monastry of Mount Saint Bernard, on Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire, as to the charges of the "Protestant Association" concerning Indulgences, and received from him a very courteous explanation. But what is the fact? Why that there is as much variety of idea on religious subjects in the Roman Catholic Church as in other churches. No iron-bound form of words can fetter the mind, or give one fixed character to its varying perceptions. To provide a form of words, is only providing the potter's vessel-which the possessor may fill with any sort of liquid he pleases. An honest pope would fill the doctrine of Indulgences blamelessly; a bad one would fill it with abominations. Just so it is on the doctrine of the Trinity, common to both Protestant and Papist. One man will affirm the existence of Three Independent Divine Persons, according to the vulgar sense of the word Person; while another will declare, because he himself attaches a learned idea to the words Divine Person, that to say that Protestants so affirm, is a calumny.

In regard to forbidding the Word to be read.-The priest at Loughborough will say, "We recommend all Catholics to read the Douay Translation, because it is the best,—but only on condition that it be interpreted as we interpret it. We allow no deviation from the sense put upon it by the church."* Where the party to be directed is found ignorant and controllable, the priest will say, that is, whenever he pleases, "It is not good for you to read except so and so;" that is, a part of their translation, -or perhaps some book instead, such as the Lives of the Saints. Now, while the main question of liberty, or no liberty, to read the Word, is thus liable to be blinked; and while the liberty to read the Scriptures granted with one hand, is thus taken away or nullified by the other; also, while the bondage general in which the laity are held * Thus is tradition, and the pope's decree, put above the Word, as Swedenborg affirms also in N. J. D. n. 8.

by the priests, to read the Scriptures, which Catholics affirm is granted to the laity, is used to destroy the liberty specific; while there is so much shuffling and trimming, according to expediency and the course of circumstances, there is no coming to a conclusion, but that the general affirmation of Swedenborg, and of Protestants in general, that the laity are denied the free use of the Scriptures, is true.

But I was remarking, that it appears from the second allegation of Swedenborg, which should be understood to be the meaning he intended to be attached to the first. It means, that the whole Roman Catholic Church prescribes and practises the worship of Roman Catholics, to wit, the worship of the living Pope, and, to some extent, the hierarchy, and also the worship of departed Roman Catholic saints. That is a fact; and all the attempts to distinguish between religious worship and personal honour to the good, can only be applicable to the few-just as there are but few who attach to the words Divine Person, in connection with the Trinity, any sense but the gross sense of Person. Speaking as to the majority, the Roman Catholics are certainly worshipers of themselves in this sense.

That this is the sense of the words in N. J. Doc. n. 8, appears, also, by a reference to the "Brief Exposition," No. 20, where it is said, "The Roman Catholics rarely approach God our Saviour, but instead of Him, the Pope as his Vicar, and likewise the saints." And in No. 107 it is again affirmed, that the Roman Catholics adore the Pope as Christ's Vicar, and invoke the saints—and most assuredly, if the Pope, (as all Roman Catholics affirm) BE Christ's Vicar, they ought to adore him; consequently, to say that they do not adore him, but yet believe that he is Christ's Vicar, is but to publish their own impiety!

But in saying, in n. 107, this of the Roman Catholics, does he mean that they are individually wicked, or self-worshipers individually? Not at all. For he proceeds to affirm, that they are more teachable, more in a state congenial with truth than Protestants, and thus, by a fair implication, that there are more good people amongst Catholics than amongst Protestants. In n. 108 (the next number, observe) Swedenborg affirms that the Roman Catholics may be brought into the New Church more easily than the Reformed, and he gives three reasons for this conclusion, which go to prove how well Swedenborg thought of the Roman Catholics as individuals, and utterly exclude the idea of their being, in his opinion, worshipers of themselves individually.

But I do not expect that your Roman Catholic friend will accept this explanation. To find words in an antagonist writer upon which a bad sense can be fixed, although on investigation it may prove the wrong sense, is too great a polemical advantage to religious disputants gener

« VorigeDoorgaan »