LIBRARY OF TIIK. AT FRll\C'ETOi\, IV. J. UOiVAl'lOK OF S A M IJ K L A G N K W , r> ^ 1. 1 i- II 1 1, i n K I. H H I » . i- A . Letter J 3 >^ g BX 8731 .B871 1847 Bush, George, 1796-1859. Reply to Rev. Dr. Woods' "Lecture on Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/replytorevdrwoodOObush a. c (JHui) C3L/t£- .'yv^ CC»^^ ^ouj^t*^ C 6- c c cl. c^j c. Qyi C -yf^ ^ ^ t. ^ e. c ocA^f- i. }^ cy Out r. Pi i c^c j . .... ^-^.W. TAc /n.^cyh^^ ^ - y • - ^> r REPLY TO REV. DR. WOODS' LECTURES ON S WEDENBORGIANISM;" DELIVERED IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, ANDOVER, MASS- BY GEORGE BUSH. NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY JOHN ALLEN, 139 NASSAU STREET. BOSTON : OTIS CLAPP — LONDON: WILLIAM NEWBERY. 1847. 2 j % Snowden & Prall, PTinlers, Corner of Ann * Nassau streets, N.Y. ^ — .^SL t 9g _ ■'■ .'/ 1 . V < t>f^ <^f^ • f f ^ * ERRATA. « p. 1, line 7, for " spirit to the apostolic precept" read " spirit of the apostolic pre- cept." »P. 33, line 12, for " Hengstenbery" read " Hengstenberg." t P. 57, line 1, for " surprising to every one" read " surprising to any one." •P. W line 1I», from bottom, for Rev. Badin Powell" read " Rev. Baden Powell." P. lyS, line 2j, for " fallacy and intMiUy of his claims" read " fallacy and inanity of his claims." *P. 220, line 20, fox " all evil and social good" read " all civil and social good." V HEPLY, &c. LETTER I. Dr. Woods, Rev and Dear Sir : The inspired motto of your recently published volume, entitled " Lectures on Swedenborgianism" — " Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good" — offers to me the same warrant for examining with care your own work that it does to you for sitting in judgment on the doctrines of Swedenborg. As I do not feel at liberty to question the sincerity and uprightness of the motives which have prompted you in submitting to the ordeal of reason and revelation the merits of the system which he has propounded to the world, so I would fain hope to proceed in a manner equally accordant with the spirit t« the apostolic precept in my own probation of the True and my steadfast holding to the Good of your production. If I have any embarrassment in entering yipon the task proposed, it arises from the sentiments of warm personal regard wliich your uniform courtesy and kindness have ever compelled me to cherish toward^ you — sentiments abundantly witnessed by the general tenor of your pamphlet — and which render the office that I have entered y^on like something under- taken by a son in opposition to a father. But the claims of Truth we both re- gard as paramount to those of all earthly relations, and you would justly enter- tain but a poor opinion of that professed earnestness of conviction which would forbear, from motives of complaisance, to assume the defence of principles held to be of the utmost importance, and which were yet called in question and ar- raigned of error, y^on this work of vindication I feel constrained to enter, how- ever hampered by the difficulty of uniting fidelity to truth with the deepest res- pect for the person of my opponent. If I should fail in either particular, it will doubtless be owing to the preponderance of the opposite class of sentiments at the time. The kmd allusions you are pleased to make to myself in the Preface and here and there throughout the volume, together with the frank concession that you have received profit firom the perusal of portions of Swedenborg's writings, goes far to disarm the severity of criticism, and this effect is still farther enhanced by the general vein and spirit of your work. I can freely say that it is pervaded by a prevailuig tone of candor. It betrays no attempt, by an invidious array of offensive points, to turn the system into ridicule, and make it the butt of a mere odium theologicum. The object, as it strikes the reader, is obviously in the main simple and sincere — to try the system by appropriate tests, and to ascertain how far it agrees with, and how far it differs from, the truth. I think, indeed, that I 4 REPLY TO DR. WOODS. shall be able to show that in several particulars you have misapprehended, and therefore misrepresented, the real character of his teachings, but I cheerfully ac- cord to your pamphlet a ruling honesty and fairness of purpose, and a christian- like course of discussion, which demands, and I doubt not will receive, the thanks of all intelligent New Churchmen. The work stands, m this respect, in marked and very honorable contrast with a large portion of the tracts, reviews, and volumes which have emanated from Swedenborg's opponents. Their general aim has imiformly been to ex- cite obloguy' and contempt, by holding up to view such detached items and features of the scheme as should seem to outrage all rational belief, while they studiously avoid the consideration of the fundamental prmciples and laws of being on which the whole is affirmed to rest. It seems never to have occurred to these writers, that all the formidable objections, arising from the details of the system, had to be encountered, in the outset of their inquiries, by every present espouser of it, and that they were no less sensible than others to their utmost force. But these objections were countervailed, in their minds, by the strength of the evidence which arrayed itself in support of Swedenborg's claims, and it seems to them no more thcin equitable, that their acceptance of these doctrines shall be judged of by the reasons which have prompted it. These reasonshave been with them all in all, and why is not the demand fair, that their adequacy or in- adequacy to sustain the credence yielded shall be pronoiuiced jij^on .' Yet this is precisely the demand which our opponents have hitherto refused to comply "with. They have been willing to deal with the conclusions, but not with the premises, l^i^tillyour work appeared, I recollect not a single instance, with the exception perhaps of Priestley, where there was even an approximation to the show of controversial justice in the mode of conducting the argument in regard to Swedenborg's title to be received as a messenger from heaven. Your own work I do regard as an approximation to this point, though falling short of it hi a variety of particulars, which I propose to designate in the sequel. The same remark, though in a still more qualified sense, I feel bound to make in respect to Dr. Pond's " Swedenborgianism Reviewed." Neither ui your work nor m his do I recognize a disposition to do mjustice to Swedenborg by a gross caricaturmg of his doctrines, or by a substitution of coarse abuse for grave reasoning. They both bear evidence of havmg been penned by men, who were seriously persuad- ed that the system in question involved errors of a momentous character, and such as called for argumentative refutation. I do not of course admit that either of these works has succeeded in establishing the positions ^j^on which it has labored. I do not regard them as having solidly convicted the system of a single error on the score of philosophy or theology, or as having made good a single objection urged against it ; but I nevertheless concede to both a laudable freedom from the traits, which have almost mvariably characterised every for- mer attempt to bring discredit and reproach )f?]^on the doctrines embraced by the New Jerusalem Church. These volumes may therefore be regarded as in- dicative of the dawn of a better day in the conduct of the controversy bearing yipon the doctrines and developments announced to the world by the Swedish savan. The bare fact that individuals hke yourself and Dr. Pond — occupying high posts in the theological world, — seated, as it were, in tlie very Mizpe/is, or jdaces o/espioi, in the territory of dogmatic research — should have seen fit, almost /. I REPLY TO DR. WOODS. 5 simultaneously, to enter into the debate, will be of itself sufficient henceforward to redeem the system opposed from the charge of absurdity and extravagance which has hitherto rested ylp'on it. For who can suppose that two such " grave and reverend seniors" should have girded themselves to the conflict unless they deemed the enemy worthy their prowess Would they have appeared on the arena if they had regarded the doctrines advanced as a mere mass of idle visions and dreams, sustained by no show of solid reasons, and calculated to work no conviction except ia minds which had lost their balance and become the easy dupes of wild delusions The question will very naturally occur, whether it could have been anticipated of either of these gentlemen, that they should, for instance, have assumed the attitude of public opponents of the vagaries of Mor- monism Would they not have deemed them beneath the notice of their pens ? Would they have been willing to confer yj^on them even the eclat of their dis- sent Whatever then may be the estimate of the christian community at large of the character of these doctrines, it is clear that neither yourself nor your theo- logical compeer regard them as at all if on a par with the ordinary class of re- ligious hallucinations. But this is not all. Your calm and logical course of procedure— your candid consideration of the arguments adduced — your careful abstinence from any de- signed invidious exhibition of the tenets of Swedeuborg— your studious suppres- sion of all mcendiary or disparaging epithets — your evident aim to do no injus- tice to the views remarked ]|(^on— in all this your example (and I speak of both) goes to administer an emphatic rebuke to all other modes of carrying on the warfare against the creed of the New Church. You have established a prece- dent which I trust will be followed. Yoa have virtually said, " These are men to be argued with, and not to be put down by vilification and ridicule. They justly claim to be convinced, and not merely denounced having yielded their faith to crazy conceits and blasphemous outrages ^jfon the Holy Oracles. They pro- fess to assign adequate and rational grounds for their belief, and they are to be dealt with accordingly." For the altered complexion which your influence is thus likely to give to all future controversy on this score, I am for one profoitndly grateful. Its effect, I am quite sure, will not be lost ^^on us in the maintenance of ottr positions. In approaching the consideration of your work, I find myself draAvn in the outset to several remarks occurring in the Preface, containing what you would have to be regarded as a solution of the fact, that matter of real excellence occa- sionally stands out in Swedenborg's writings in marked contrast with the staple of the dreams. After alluding in courteous terms to my private communications, you say : — "I can assure my brother, that I have attended to the works of his favorite author with a sincere desire to profit. And I think that I have profited. Some important truths, which I have long believed, particularly in regard to the iu' ward motives of human action, the disclosure which Avill be made of the secrets of the heart in another world, and the correspondence of futitre retributions with the predominant characters of men, have, by these writings, been impressed on my thoughts with new vividness and force. In some cases his visionary repre- sentations of important practical truths are very striking and happy. In his work on Providence he advances many just and scriptural views. This and some other of his works seem to contain his own speculations, and I think must have been composed mostly during the intervals, (as there evidently were in- tervals), between his visionary states, when he thought and wrote from his own 6 REPLY TO DR. WOODS. mind, and not from the dictation or influx of angels, whether good or bad. In the works referred to, we do not find him saying continually, that the angels told him so and so. And I cannot but deem it a special advantage to him, that he was thus occasionally left to think in his own way, and to draw his theories and arguments from his own resources." That the disclosures to which you refer cannot well be read without yielding to every candid mind the " profit" which you acknowledge yourself to have de- rived from them, I can easily understand. But how it can be conceived possible that such a searching analysis of human motives — such a keen anatomising of the heart — such a terrible cautery of conscience — such an impressive display of retribution — could have proceeded from any one who was not an actual eye and ear witness of the realities of the world of inner unveiling, I cannot understand. With me they receive all their force from the evidence afforded that he is, in these statements, dispensing the results of experience('znd not of mere speculation, whether sane or insane. If these alleged disclosures really possess the moral efficacy which you attribute to them, it must be from their accordance with what you are otherwise assured to be the substantial truth, and it would certainly seem reasonable, that the acknowledged intrinsic truth involved in his statements should abate somewhat of the presumption of their being the mere product of dreaming phantasy. Something, at any rate, seems due to the consideration, that a mere dreamer would be quite as apt to dream falsity as truth. But from this dilemma you would obviously extricate your concession by the assumption that follows — and assumption it undoubtedly is, for there is nothing in the recorded biography of Swedenborg to warrant it. We look in vain for the least hint or intimation of such " lucid inter\'als" as you suppose " between his visionary states ;" durmg which he gave out his own speculations as distin- guished from his extatic disclosures. He claims for all the writings published by himself subsequent to his illumination precisely the same degree of authority, . and it is utterly at variance with everything Imown of the integrity of his charac- ter to suppose, that he would have given us no criterion by which to discrim- inate between what " he thought and wrote from his own mind" and what he received " from the dictation or influx of angels." In a letter to a friend pub- lished by Mr. Hartley, and givjng the leading particulars of his life, he says, "Whatever of worldly power and advantage may appear to be in the things above-mentioned, I hold them as comparatively matters of little moment, be- cause, what is far better, I have been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most graciously manifested Himself to me His servant, in the year 1743, and then opened my sight into the spiritual world and endowed me with the gift of conversing with spirits and angels, which has been continued to me to this day. From that time I began to print and publish various arcana, that have either been seen by me, or revealed to me ; as concerning heaven and hell ; the state of men after death ; the true worship of God ; the spiritual sense of the Word ; and many other most important matters tending to salvation and true wisdom ; and the only motive which has induced me, at different times, to leave my home and visit foreign countries, was the desire of being useful, and of communicating the arcana entrusted to me." This letter was written in 1769, twenty-six years after the date of his illumi- nation, and three years before his death. During this whole period he declares himself to have enjoyed his distuiguished gift of spiritual sight, and during this '1 ' p REPLY TO DR. WOODS. 7 period it was that those very works were written, of which you speak with commendation and by portions of which yon declare yourself to have been "profited." In this then you were reaping the fruits of that very illumination from which you would fain withhold the due credit. He elsewhere very frequently alludes to the continued enjoyment of his supernatural state through a long course of years, and never once hints at the interruption or suspension of it for any interval, whether long or short. You remark indeed, — and this seems to be the source of your impression — that "in the works referred to, we do not find him saying continually, that the angels told him so and so." Very true; but what does he himself declare on this head.' "With the angels I have conversed these twenty-two years past, and daily continue so to do ; with them tlie Lord has given me association ; though there was no occasion to mention all this in my writings. Who would have believed, and who would not have said, show some token, that I may believe and this every one would have said who did not see the like." Permit me then to ask i^jion what grounds you feel authorized to assert the fact of such a distinction as you have pointed at between the different portions of Swedenborg's writings, as if one were the production of his own mind, in its normal condition, and another the result of alleged angelic dictation ? It certainly rests \^)(Son no admission of his own, nor does it receive countenance from any other authentic source, and the opinion would seem to have been adopted solely with a view to meet an exigency. A problem was to be solved respecting what Swedenborg says of controversial debates among the spirits of the other world. " It is remarkable, that all his works, whether prompted by his own mind (.'), or by the spirits of dead men, contain a great abundance of controversial matter. It is, however, obvious that, in this respect, his account of the heavenly world, though it indirectly resulted from his own habit of thinking (.'), is not according to the word of God. For who would ever learn from the Scriptures, that there is any occasion for controversy, or any want of union, in heaven " To say nothing of the mistake of making heaven, instead of the world of spirits, the scene of these debates among spirits, here is a foregone conclusion, with which the admission of Swedenborg's truth on this head is wholly inconsistent. His state therefore at the time was not one of truthfulness, but a state of phantasy. "When a man who has been accustomed to controversy, has a dream or vision of the world of spirits, it is no wonder if he finds things there, much as they are here." You are of course at liberty, if you find no better solution, to explain Swedenborg's statements of the facts of the other life on the hypothesis, that the whole of them are the offspring of dreams and delusions, both the true and the false, but I must certainly protest against a gratuitous assumption in the outset, with a view to separate these different elements, and then reasoning on this assumption so as to save the credit of one part of his statements at the expense of another. The evidence is decisive that all the utterances emanated from precisely the same psychological state, and for the same reasons that we ascribe truth to one part of them, we ascribe it to the others also. The whole matter reverts therefore to the question, first, of the fact of such a state as Swedenborg claims for himself, and, secondly of the necessary truthfulness of that state arising from its supernatural character. In other words, the question has to be determined, whether such a state as he 8 REPLY TO DR. WOODS. affirms his to have been could have occurred, unless he were brought into it by the direct divine agency, and whether, concedmg tliis, he would at the same time have been allowed in that state to give forth to the world a mixed medley of truth and falsehood. This you will perceive to be a question of very grave import, and one ^j^on which I trust some light will be thrown as we proceed. For the present I remain, Dear Sir, Very respectfully Yom-s, GEO. BUSH. LETTER II. Rev. and Dear Sir : After intimating in your preface that you shall peremptorily decline any reply to whatever animadversions may be made upon your work, you hand over the task of continuing the controversy, if it shall be kept up, in the following words : " I must therefore commit the subject to the care of brethren who are younger than I, and to the disposal of an all-wise Providence ; and \vill oiily whisper to zealous advocates of Swedenborgianism, that their expectations of success ,^will be very likely to be disappointed. The system has indeed some powerful attractions to a certain class of men. But its errors and corruptions are so palpable and gross, as to divest it entirely of the authority which it claims, and to prevent its prevalence among the great body of sober-minded Christians." — p. 4. The " whisper" here. so kindly administered to the " zealous advocates of Swe- denborgianism" might as well have been a voice uttered in the tones of a trumpet, for any special or oracular significancy which they will be disposed to attach to it. The probability of their success in the propagation of their peculiar views will depend, they believe, entirely upon their accordance with the abstract truth, as embodied in the Divine Word, and echoed in the universal reason of man. Their hopes on this score are measured entirely by their confi- dence in the accomplishment of the Divine purposes, in regard to the final prevalence of the genuine doctrines of Christianity over the earth. Cheering anticipations on this head do undoubtedly hold the ascendancy in their minds, yet they are moderated by so deep a consciousness of the many adverse influences with which the truth has to contend, that they are probably as fai' as any class of men can well be from cherishing expectations, tliat will be likely to receive a shock from disappointment. The very genius of the system forbids the prospect, in the main, of any other than a very gradual triumph over the obstacles which oppose its progress, and its espousers have only to revert to their own individual experience — to the long struggle — the alternations of doubt and assurance — the antagonist pleadings of self-interest, even when conviction had won the day — to be aware of the infinite lets and hindrances with which a code of life and truth so sublimated, so intellectual, so spiritual, so heavenly, will inevitably meet. Nevertheless, as I remarked, the confidence of hope .pre- dominates, because they consider the bestowment of the revelations a virtual pledge for their ultimate wide reception, and they consequently regard all such whimpered vaticinations as the above as little else than a mere gratuitous begging the question as to the intrinsic verity of the principles and doctrines involved, if the system tie of man, it cannot eventually succeed ; if it lie of God, it cannot REPLY TO DR. WOODS. 9 but succeed. The true issue therefore is the true character of the system, and by the verdict of the Divine Providence on this head I presume you and I are both willing to abide, and we can mutually agree to hold our prophecies in abeyance till that is pronounced. As I have already made my grateful acknowledgment for various personal courtesies interspersed through your volume, it will be unnecessary to repeat them in every instance in which I feel constrained to advert to such references. Nor do I advert to them with a view to make the personality prominent. It is solely with the design of remarking upon something of more importance, as for mstance in the passage which follows ; — " It would have been gratifying to me and to many others, if Professor Bush had come forward with the express design to carry into effect the above mentioned precept of the Apostle in reference to Swedenborg's writings, and to distinguish between the true and the false, the good and the bad, the Scriptural and the anti- scriptural. As I considered him to be sound in the faith, and settled in the in- telligent belief of the great doctrines of the gospel as commonly understood by evangelical ministers and churches ; 1 should have thought him well qualified for such an undertaking. But the work he has entered upon is of a different kind. His object is not to discriminate between the true and the false in his favorite author, but to recommend his writings without distinction, and to de- fend the system contained in them, with all its peculiarities, against all ex- ceptions. He has given no intimation that he regards Swedenborg as chargea- ble with any mistake, or liable to any. On the contrary, it is implied in what he has published, that he has full confidence in the claims of that writer to a divine commission, and in the divine authority of all his teachings. In this matter, I find myself in a very diff'erent state of mind from my brother." — p. 10. The precept of the Apostle to which you refer, as one that you and others would have been gratified to see me come forward with the design of carrying into effect, is that which stands at the head of your Lectures — " Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good," and the implication is, that I could not consist- ently act upon the spirit of this precept in reference to Swedenborg's writings without " distinguishing between the true and the false, the good and the bad, the scriptural and the anti-scriptural," that might be found in them. In reply to this allow me to say, that as the whole body of these writings came before me with precisely the same claim on the score of truth and authority, I felt myself bound in justice to examine the foundations of that claim as to the entire ground covered by it, and not as to its separate departments. The system announced, I perceived to rest upon certain great principles, mainly psychological, and that by the truth or falsity of these principles, the whole superstructure built upon them must stand or fall. Swedenborg does not j^resent himself to the world as a man giving out his own peculiar views — the product of his own unaided spec- ulations— like an ordinary theologian, some of which might be expected to be sound and some unsound, but he comes professedly clothed with an entirely dif- ferent character — that of a chosea and commissioned messenger from God, em- powered, by special divine illumination, to lay open the mysteries of the spirit- ual world, and to unfold the genuine doctrines of the inspired Word. Whether true or false, this is his claim, and this claim, in its entire purport, I felt con- strained to weigh. It did not at all occur to me that I was to begin, from the very outset, with the tacit assumption, that a part of his averments were probably true, and a part of them certainly false, and then to proceed, by a winnowing process, to separate the wheat from the chaff. I was rather prompted to act upon 10 REPLY TO DR. WOODS. the principle distinctly recognized by yourself, (p. 20), " If his claims are founded in truth, all his revelations are, in the highest sense, from God." It was very obvious, that considering his claim of truth throughout, any pal- pable errors would of course practically nullify all the positive truths with which they might be mixed up. Who would regard the truth when corrupted by such base alloys of falsity You have yourself distinctly adverted to this perverse tendency in the human mind to undervalue truth when found in close connection with error. " Truth," you say, " is indeed truth, wherever it is found. But mixing error with it is likely to prevent its good influence on the mind, and in many ways to lead on to pernicious consequences." You are right therefore in saying that my object is not any such discrimination as you spake of, but to recom- mend Swedenborg's writings without distinction, for I know not where to draw the line that shall separate between the true and the false. If you can enlighten me on this head by clearly defining the principles on which such a discrimina- tion is to be made, I will readily confess to the defectiveness of my procedure. But permit me to say that it will not be sufficient for this purpose merely to point out certain features of his disclosures which are intuitivelj^een to be true and which involve truths that have uniformly been admitted as such by good men of all ages of the Church. This doubtless may be very easily done. But the credit given to Swedenborg on this score is a vastly inadequate response to the extent of his claim. These self-evident truths, as you might term them, are found in him in such connections — built upon such principles — bearing such re- lations to the nature of God and the nature of man — and drawing after them such inevitable results — that they assume an entirely new phasis and can scarcely be recognized as the same truths with which we were before familiar. You remark upon this head, that; — " There are many doctrines contained in Swedenborg's writings, which we believe, because they are agreeable to reason and Scripture. We are not in- debted to him for the knowledge of these doctrines, though we may be under obligations to him for presenting some of them before us in a clear and strikuig • manner. For example, we have believed, without any reference to his writings, that the mind or spirit is essentially the man. We have beUeved that man con- tinues to exist after the death gf the body, a real and true man, in the full pos- session of the power of perceiving and knowing, loving and hating, enjoying and suffering. And we have believed that he has all his mental powers and faculties, as a rational and moral being, in a higher degree of activity and per- fection after death, than before. We have believed that the spirits of men in 'another world, even before the resurrection of the body, are not only capable of intercourse with the inlinite Spirit, but of communicating their thoughts and feelings to one another, and that far more perfectly than was ever done by means of bodily organs in the present life. We have believed that the state of man in the other world w'lW be according to the predominant affection which he exercised and the habits he formed on earth; and that an unsanctified man is incapable of holy pleasures, and could not be happy in heaven, even if he were permitted to dwell there. We have believed in the existence and agency of good and evil angels ; and we have believed that they have a real influence in and upon the minds of men, the good angels, a salutary influence, and wicked angels, a hurtful influence, though we have not always called it an " influx." We have helieved that the Lord Jesus, being truly God, is the proper object of supreme worship, and that according to the example of the Apostles and primitive Chris- tians, our prayers are to be addressed to him, as really as to the Father. We ' have believed that friends and acquaintances will fully recognize each other and be associated together in the world of spirits; that all the holy, whether they die older or younger, will in some way suited to their condition, have the means oi 2.. !)n^LxML-v~ ulj^ \/vi\'\,yvc , instructed by a wisdom superior to his own. If we are consistent Christians, y we believe that we have been thus instructed ; and we have settled it in our , ' • minds, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, clolhei-) " A ' with divine authority, and are the only sure and infallible rule of our faith and practice, \ This has become a fundamental principle with us. On the ground of clear and sufficient evidence, our reason receives it and rests upon it; and we can no^ longer call it in question. Now this word of God has taught us a system of moral* Jl» and religious truths, which we can no more doubt, than we can the veracity of y God. When therefore we undertake, in the use of our reason, to form a )udg* ^ , .^meut as to the truth of any other system, how strange would it be, if we should • divest our reason of the benefit of its settled convictions ! With what ingi-atitude '-^ fv P ► and perverseness should we be chargeable, if we should extinguish or under- * ' value the light which shines upon us from revelation, and go back to the dark- > ness of deism and heathenism! This is what we cannot do. If we would ^ . ^maintain the character of Christians, we must use our reason, as enlightened by ' ^revelation. The more it is thus enlightened — the more it is furnished with scrip- "^ture-principles, and the more closely it adheres to those principles in all its act- s'ings; so much the more likely will it be to form right judgments. They who -. ■"heartily believe the word of God, and duly regard its heavenly light, shall not ^ ^ ^walk in darkness. In the case now before us, what better can we do than to > ^ ''copy the example of the noble Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily, to see ^ ^ 4N , . whether that which they heard was true. We must go directly to the Bible ; we . » " ^^must go with all our intellectual and moral faculties; and our great inquiry .\ ~^ i ^must be, whether the disclosures of Swedenborg are in harmony with the Scriptures. Our reason and our philosophy, instead of attempting to be a guide to the word " ^ of God, must be guided by it." — p. 15. ^ , I have given this passage at full length, because it embodies, with much dis- * . -^^ ^.Jtinctness, thejwi of the grand objection usually urged against the soundness of .^F s\ I ^the test which T have here proposed. " The appeal, it is said, is directly to the ^ r > • J ^ inner intuitions of the reason. But whose reason ? The reason of one man differs ..^ |^ ? * widely, as to its state and mode of exercise, from the reason of another. Con- J , ^ sequently the appeal in different cases will meet with different receptions and ' y _ ; lead to different results." And you intimate that such a claim as I have asserted ' >^ ^ for the peculiar principles of Swedenborg camiot be maintained, unless they are like the first principles or self-evident truths of Geometry. Now from the above ^ > position respecting reason I do not scruple to affirm my total and unequivocal j dissent, and in the case before us I appeal directly to your reason, as well as to i\ that of every man who is disposed to exercise his faculties upon the evidence of If truth in regard to moral subjects. I cannot doubtfor a moment that there is a com-^ '^ J ^ O^y>i^on reason*p ertaining to man as man, which will always draw substantially the ^ ^ ^ same conclusions from the same premises, when those premises are distinctly be- \ _ >~ fore the mind. I cannot question that there are moral axioms which command >4 \ assent as truly as mathematical axioms, and that nothing more is needed than their simple enunciation, in a clear light, to receive the instantaneous admission of their , w ^ ■ truth. This arises from the very constitution of the human mind. It cannot see t the meaning of certain propositions -without at the same time seeing their truth. . " J "tJ^^ reosojimg {ratiocinatio) of different men is undoubtedly different; but the : ■ ^ ^ J reason {ratio) of all men is the same, because it is in fact the Universal Reason — the ^v.;:;^ reason of God himself The utterances of this inward oracle may be perverted^ ^ V by the influence of affection and passion. The light of the rational eye may be ^ j;^ darkened by the mists of ignorance, of prejudice, of error, and other causes, but . when the clouds are cleared away it always, in all men, sees the same things in 20 REPLY TO DR. WOODS. the same manner. A Hottentot or an Esquimaux must see the propositions of Euclid in the same light with Newton or La Place, when his mind is opened by the process of intelleciual culture to perceive the truth of the axioms on which they rest, and to grasp the chain of consecutive demonstration. He must yield the same assent, upon the same evidence, that is yielded by Edwards or Dwight to the eternal distinction between right and wrong— to the duty of lovhig and serving God — to the propriety of pursuing happiness rather than misery — to the justice of the Golden Rule — and to various other moral axioms upon which the well-beiug of the rational creation obviously depends. All this arises from the fact of the community of reason in the universal mind of man. If it be not so, I should be gratified to learn on what grounds you would feel authorized to pass censure on those who reject the evidence of the truth of the Christian Religion. You urge the claims of this Religion upon a philosophical skeptic. He replies that he has given the subject his serious and careful consid- eration, and that the verdict of his dispassionate reason is against it. Do you, in your judgment, acquit his decision of all wrong ? Are you not mwardly con- scious that there is some radical vice in the mental process by which he has brought himself to this conclusion Do you scruple to assure him that his rea- soning really does violence to his reason .' Do you not confidently affirm, that God has so constituted the human mind — that he has established such a harmony between the dictates of the reason and the grand truths of Revelation — that it is absolutely impossible that the latter should be rejected when the former has fair play Neither you nor he may be able to detect the precise point where the defect in the process inheres, but you are positively certain that the defect exists somewhere, and that he is not faithful to the voice of reason in rejecting Revelation. You have not a doubt that the verdict of enlightened reason, when the evidence is fairly weighed, will evermore be in accordance with the claims of the Christian faith. It is so in your own case, and 3/ou cannot conceive that it should be otherwise in his. Yet allow me to ask, with what propriety you can challenge the soundness of his decision on the principle affii-med in your Lectures, that the reason of dif- ferent men will, on the same subjects, lead them to different results ? How can you any more justly impeach his reason for rejecting Christianity, than he yours for embracing it? If I rightly apprehend the purport of your argument, you have furnished him with a complete apology for his conclusion. In your con- troversy with the skeptic, in behalf of Cliristianity, you appeal to " the inner in- tuitions of the reason." He says to you, as you to me, " I make no objection to the test. But how shall we apply it ? To whose reason shall we appeal ? You submit the matter to my reason and my reason discards the verdict of yours." What have you to reply so long as he is merely acting on the very principle with which your logic has furnished him .' I am here reminded of a very peculiar train of remark bearing somewhat upon this subject in the Rev. Mr. Landis' reply to my work on the Resurrection. Whatever may be the success of my attempt to rebut the force of your reasoning ; ) on this head, I certainly feel no diliiculty in regard to his. In his chapter on •5 ^ « The true office of Reason in respect to Revealed Religion," in which he very '^^ truculently"^ takes to task my position, that " reason and religion must be con- sistent with each other," he remarks ;— The statement made by Prof. Bush and AA-tfufe a^it. c ■ ^ ■■ ■ . .V '. REPLY TO DR. WOODS. 21 others who have writteu as vaguely on the subject, neither makes nor allows any distinction between the principles of reason (so called), which any man in particular may adopt, and the principles of right reason, such as God both recog- nizes and appeals to in his word : and hence every man is left to infer that the deductions of his own philosophy (however distorted by his education or his prejudices), are legitimate, and that the announcements of revelation ought to be so explained as to harmonize with them." Again, " It is not to be forgotten thai there is the same distinction to be observed between Prof. Bush's view of right reason, and right reason itself, as between a man's view of truth, and truth itself." Once more; "The Professor perpetually confounds his own philosophy with true philosophy ; and, of course, leaves the privilege of doing the same to every man who is satisfied with the legitimacy of his own deductions." The deconun and the dialectics are here just about upon a par. With a most exquisite assur- ance of infallibility he assumes that my reason must of course be opposed to right reason, and my philosophy to true philosophy, and why Does he inti- mate any other ground of the ex cathedra sentence than that it is opposed to his ? And is not his equally opposed to mine ? I do not like rudely to disturb any man's self-complacency, but if it may consist with the deference due to one who speaks so oracularly, I would fain inquire whence he obtained the authority to speak thus as the inspired organ of the only " right reason" and the only " true philosophy ?" By what tokens am I to know that he is indeed invested with this high prerogative ? So lofty a claim needs to be made out by some adequate credentials. I should imagine, indeed, that he was not at all aware that there was any room for preferring the question, yet it does really seem a little question- able how one can affirm, in one breath, that " man's reason has been bruised, and weakened, and defaced, and gi'eatly obliterated by the fall," and yet in the next, under the auspices of this very reason, thus bruised, battered and broken, take it upon him to sit peremptorily in judgment on the opinions of another and condemn them as undoubtedly irrational and absurd. Is there not at least a bare possibility, that the deteriorating effects of the fall may have left some traces of fallibility upon his reason, as well as upon that of those who differ from him? May we not, at any rate, deferentially solicit some evidence that he is commissioned to speak ex officio in the name of whatever " right reason" and " true philosophy" may be found in the universe ? Is it at all mal apropos to ap- ply to a critic of this stamp the language of Jeremy Taylor — " When a man speaks reason, it is but reason that he should be heard ; but though he may have the good fortune, or great abilities to do it, yet he hath not a certainty, no regular infallible assistance, no inspiration of arguments or deductions ; and if he had, yet because it must be reason that must judge of reason, unless other men's un- derstanding were of the same area, the same constitution and ability, they can- not be prescribed unto by another man's reason." {Lib. of Proph. p. 146.) I can scarcely doubt that you, my dear sir, will agree with me that nothing is more supremely ridiculous than such an " 'Ercles' vein" of dogmatism in any one who has not received letters-patent of infallibility from the Divine fountain- head of truth. What right has an erring mortal to assume a tone implying that he is in possession of the true key of wisdom, while I am merely gropmg and fumbling at the door with no means of opening it .' With the same interests at stake — with the same honesty of purpose — with the same advantages for in- 22 REPLY TO DR WOODS. quiry — what authority has he for intimating that the results of my investigation are less in accordance with " right reason" than his own ? If he shall prove, by satisfactory arguments, that my conclusions are unsound, then let him " glory over" my fallacies ; but let him not assume in the outset, by virtue of some extra- ordinary illumination, that my reason and philosophy are of course at fault, when he can give no better grounds for the sentence than that they happen to differ from his. It will be observed, moreover, that he speaks with a kind of holy horror of the inevitable consequence of my position, viz. that it leaves to every man the privilege of regarding his philosophy as true philosophy, pro- vided only he is satisfied in his own mind that he has legitimate grounds for doing so. This is indeed a fearful issue, for it sweeps away at a single stroke the whole fabric of an authoritative tribunal appointed to hold in abeyance the right of free opinion — or, in other words, the entire system of Protestant popery, and reduces everything to the standard of private judgment. I shall leave the gentleman to mourn over the wreck of such a darling institute, and re- turn to the consideration of your reasoning. You remark, in the present connection, that " in judging of moral and religious subjects, human reason itself does, in very many cases, need a standard or guide. In other words, the rational being, man, is, in many cases, incompetent to deter- mine what is truth, without being instructed by a wisdom superior to his own. If we are consistent Christians, we believe that we have been thus instructed; and we have settled it in our minds, that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- ment are the word of God, clothed with divine authority, and are the only sure and in- fallible rule of our faith and practice. This has become a fundamental principle with us. On the ground of clear and sufficient evidence we receive it and rest upon it, and we can no longer call it in question." I perceive in all this an elemental truth which I am very happy to acknowl- edge. The receivers of Swedenborg insist as strongly as any class of men upon the need of divine illumination in order to the due exercise of the rational fac- ility, especially upon all moral and spiritual subjects. They hold that the light of the Word is indispensable to the understanding when dealing with the Word itself in its interior import, and they trust that the use of the term " influx" in this relation may not be deenjed to derogate from the essential truth of the admission. Still they would perhaps be disposed to hint at some difficulties pertaining to the above intimation. To myself, at any rate, it is far from being clear in what light you would have the above position viewed. I obtain no clew to determine how much is included in this settled conviction of the divinity and authority of the Sacred Scriptures, which you make to depend on a special illumination or " instruction" imparted to " consistent Christians" by a " wisdom superior to their own ;" for you say, " our reason and our philosophy, instead of attempting to be a guide to the word of God, must be guided by it." Would you imply that no man whatever can attain to the conclusion that the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God without the special enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit — or, in other words, that every one who reaches this conviction is ipso facto a Christian Is then the distinction of a mere spemlative and a vital and saving faith wholly groundless Is it not incessantly taught in all the pulpits of Christendom, and professedly from the Scriptures themselves, that such a spec- ulative belief may exist in unregenerate men and that too in conjunction with a i REPLY TO DR. WOODS. 23 worldly and sensual life ? This surely cannot be your meaning, for in this sense you will hardly deny that even a " Swedenborgian" may arrive at a tolerably clear assurance that the Bible contains a real revelation from God to man. You must have reference to some higher degree of the divine operation on the minds of men, and yet I am at a loss to conceive what it is or what is the precise effect you would ascribe to it. Indeed I see not why I may not avail myself of the very objection which you yourself urge on a subsequent page against what you intimate as the ground assumed in behalf of Swedenborg's claims. " As the ap- peal is to be made to reason, and reference to be had solely to the intrinsic rea- sonableness and excellence of Swedenborg's writings ; then, of course, we are not to be influenced by the authority which he claims as a divinely commis- sioned interpreter of the Scriptures. If, however, the reason to which the ap- peal is to be made means the illuminated reason of the man of the New Church ; then the reason of others can have nothing to do with the matter, and the ques- tion would be, why any others are called upon to judge." Now I am wholly unable to see why your own position is not equally assailable upon precisely the same grounds. You claim to have been led, by an " illuminated reason," to the understanding of the true system of revealed doctrine, and from this emi- nence of attainment do not scruple to pass sentence upon the system of Swe- denborg as directly at variance with the genuine teachings of the Scriptures. But how can you arraign the decisions of my reason when left destitute of the supernatural aids accorded to yours ? Indeed, what can my reason " have to do with the matter .'" Why am I " called upon to judge" at all It would seem that you had fired a petrel without thinking of the dangerous recoil. But per- haps you design to say that the spirit of God directly informs a " consistent Christian" as to the canonical authority of the different sacred books. Is this your meaning You are well aware that the settlement of the question respect- ing the canon has ever been the great problem of biblical theology, and that even to this day learned and good men demur as to the claims of several books of the Bible to the character of inspiration. Am I to understand from your language, that the determination of this question forms a part of Christian experience .' The pious Baxter assures us that this was not the case with him. " For my^ ^ . part, I could never boast of any such testimony, or light of the spirit, nor reason neither, which, without human testimony, would have made me believe, that the book of Canticles is canonical, and written by Solomon, and the book of Wisdom apocryphal, and written by Philo. Nor would I have known all or any histori- cal books, such as Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezraj Nehe- piah, &c. to be written by Divine inspiration, but by tradition."^ If this is amongj • the things taught by special illumination to all Christians, why are they still at variance on the subject Is it not a point of vital moment to the interests of revelation But you will perhaps say — and I do not see what else you can say — that the effect of this supernatural teaching, which is the privilege of " consistent Chris- tians," is to impart to them a correct knowledge of the genuine scheme of doc- trines contained in the Scriptures, in contradistinction from all the erroneous, fal- lacious, and heretical systems which are professedly deduced from the same source. But here again we encounter the most serious difficulty in reconciling this hypothesis with the actual facts of the case. If all " consistent Christians" 24 REPLY TO DR. WOODS. are led by special illumination or " instruction" to adopt a peculiar view of the doctrinal code of the Scriptures, and this illumination really proceeds from the divine Original of Truth, it is no easy matter to conceive how it should instruct one class of Christians to draw from this source a form of doctrines directly at variance with that drawn by another. Yet nothing is more palpable than the fact, that the most dissonant schemes of religious faith are alleged by the different sects of Christendom as each the veritable system of the Scriptures, and each the product of a divine illumination shed upon the minds of its advo- cates. You can scarcely fail, I thinlv, to appreciate the difficulty and embarrassment in which I find myself involved in the attempt to put a consistent interpretation upon your language. I do not apprehend what you would claim as to the na- ture or extent of that divine " instruction" which you represent as something over and above the mere light of natural reason in fixing an assurance in the minds of Christians as to the origin and authority of the inspired writings. If this " instruction" or illumination is genuine, its truth must be self-evidencing, and if so, it must be, as far as I can see, infallible. How then can the inference be resisted, that you assume a certain construction of the divine oracles to be infallibly correct, to the exclusion of every other that differs from it But how is this infallibility to be proved to my satisfaction Suppose that I should assert a claim to an equal assurance of truth, and one derived too from precisely the same source, on what grounds will you contest the claim and reject my belief as heretical and false Have you any other standard of appeal than the Scrip- tures themselves " But we are instructed by a wisdom superior to our own" as to the genuine sense of the inspired Word and therefore all doubt is precluded. It would seem inevitable, therefore, that the reliance here is upon something more than reason, and yet immediately after you remark, that this fundamental principle of the Scriptures being the word of God is " received by tlie reason on the ground of clear and sufficient evidence." If by this you mean reason actmg simply by its native, unassisted light on the evidences of Christianity con- sidered as a point of mere intellectual mquiry, I discover nothing in the position which gives you any peculiar advantage in wielding the argument against us, for we are as well assured on this head, from the dictates of reason, as you can possibly be. If on the other hand you claim the prerogative of a divinely enlight- ened reason in coming to your conclusions respecting the true system of Christian doctrine, then, in order to make your position controversially available, it will be necessary to authenticate this claim by some adequate evidence, since we plead the same prerogative in support of a very different system. You go on to say ; — " Now this word of God has taught us a system of moral and religious truths, which we can no more doubt than we can the veracity of God." Has taught whom In whose name do you here speak.' Do you refer to Christians in general — all those who receive the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the word of God But these constitute a variety of sects of very differing views, and it is certam that they do not all of them deduce the same " system of moral and religious truths" from the same Scriptures, and yet it is probable that they are all equally confident, and no more doubt the truth of their respective systems than they doubt of the veracity of God, which in fact they usually identify with the verity of their own system, hi this general body REPLY TO DR. WOODS. 25 of Christians, the receivers of Swedenborg claim a place, and they too have equal confidence in the soundness of the system which they derive from the sacred oracles. But you proceed ; — " When therefore we undertake to form a judg- ment as to the truth of another system, how strange would it be, if we should divest our reason of the benefit of its settled convictions ? With what ingratitude and ^oerverseness should we be chargeable, if we should extinguish or under- value the light which shines upon us from revelation, and go back to the dark- ness of deism and heathenism .'" What is implied in this What would you have the reader understand by " forming a judgment as to the truth of another system ?" Is not the system of Swedenborg avowedly a Christian system ? How then is it " another .'" And how is it necessary to " go back to the darkness of deism and heathenism" in order to adjudicate its claims? Do you regard the system of Swedenborg as coming before the world in the character of an antag- onist system to Christianity, and to beplaced upon a par with Deism, Mahomet- anism, or Budhism The whole train of your remark confounds me beyond measure. The controversy between you and Swedenborg is not one that in- volves the question of a divine revelation having been granted to man, or of this revelation being comprised within the contents of the Christian Scriptures. Jt is in fact the question of the sense of the revelation.- Now you may be fully assured that the sense you ascribe to it is the true sense. I am equally assured that the sense I put upon it is the correct one. Who shall decide between us ? What can authorize the condemnation of my view of the meaning of the word of God, but a conscious infallibilitij of judgment This you certainly will not claim. To what then amounts the assumption of having been taught " a system of moral and religious truths about which there can be no more doubt than there is as to the veracity of God." I lay the same claim to this that you do. And so as to the scope of the following sentence ; — " If we would maintain the character of Christians, we must use our reason, as enlightened by revelation." Assuredly ; and do the teachings of Swedenborg breathe the slightest aura of a contrary sen- timent ? Have you ever met, in the writings of his adherents, a single expression implying an underestimate of the value of revelation as a guide to human rea- son Is it not their unanimous aim to call all men to the deep and hearty ac- knowledgment of the Divine Word as the grand source of intellectual and rational light.' Why then is an adverse argument so constructed as to convey the im- pression that our views are not only nnscriptural, hnt anti- scriptural! Why is the reader led to infer that our doctrines can only be met on the ground on which the Christian apologist meets the deist and the heathen " Our great inquiry," you say, " must be, whether the disclosures of Swedenborg are in harmony with the Scriptures." This as understood from the letter, I readily admit to be the true point of inquiry, but the meaning when unlocked by the key of the previous re- mark is, whether the disclosures of Swedenborg are in harmony with a certain scheme of scripture interpretation. But suppose it to be, whether they are consist- ent with any interpretation — whether they are not directly at variance with the Scriptures, as really as the Koran or the Shasters — still the insinuation, in either case, can come properly only from one who is infallibly in the possession of the true scheme of revealed doctrine, and we sliall listen with due respect to the oracle when assured of its source. In the mean time we venture to claim a title to the character of full believers in a divine revelation, and to " have been taught 26 REPLY TO DR. WOODS. from it a system of moral and religious truths, which we can no more doubt than we can the veracity of God." If the Christian plants himself upon his prerogatives, as the Jew did in his controversy with Paul, Ave say as he did, " What advantage then hath the Christian ?" And if he allowed the Jews much, on the score of the " oracles of God being committed to them," we claim our share in the general boon. Are not we Christians as well as they ? But we are soon brought to " the conclusion of the whole matter." The foregoing train of reasoning is merely the throwing out of a kind of logical lasso by which we are to be entangled and brought up to the confession of a flat de- nial of the canonical authority of a portion of " the word of God." " But here, at the outset, we are met with an appalling fact, namely, that Swe- denborg excludes from the word of God a considerable part of what we regard as the holy Scriptures. It is, in my view, too plain to be doubted, that Christ and the Apostles acknowledged the very books, and all the books, which now compose the Old Testament, to be the word of God, and regarded the whole and every part of them, as of divine authority. Any one who wishes to see this proved clearly and conclusively, would do well to examine the various treatises which relate to the subject, particularly the recent publication of Professor Stuart on the canon of the Old Testament. Our Author, then, by rejecting a part of the books, which were received by Christ and the Apostles, and which have always been received, by Jews and Christians, as the word of God, sets himself not only above the inspired Apostles, but in opposition to Christ himself, to whom God gave the Spirit without measure, and who came to bear witness to the truth. What shall we say to these things .' Were the holy Apostles mistaken in regard to the books which belong to the word of God Was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, full of grace and truth, — was he mistaken.' Must it not be a disordered state of mind that can lead any man to entertain such an opinion The books of the Old Testament which Swedenborg refused to acknowledge as making a part of Was not this the very rock on which the nation, as a body, split And is it for Christian men to enact over again the same infatuation ? Be assured, my dear sir, there is a danger here of which the Christian world is but little aware. It is impossible for any one who has not examined the proph- ecies with attention to be positively certain of safety in neglecting to ponder the very announcements which Swedenboi>g has made respecting the character of the present era. We may be at the point at which it can properly be said of us, " 0 that thou hadst known the day of thy visitation !" In view of the scope of my remarks, so amply quoted above, I was, in the pe- rusal, anticipating of course your reply to the fundamental assumption, so clearly indicated throughout, that all the signal effects adverted to were traceable to the great cause assigned by Swedenborg, when, to my surprise, I encountered the following 2Ma«\ejoinder: " I must leave it to the followers of Swedenborg to make it appear, that the grand social, moral and intellectual movement, which, during the last eighty years has been changing the face of the civilized world, has been owing to his system. Let it be, that the grand movement referred to, did commence about the middle of the last century. The question to be answered is, what influence the revelations of Swedenborg had to originate that movement, or to carry it forward. Many events are counected in point of time, which have no connect- ion as cause and effect. Many learned men, now living, were born just before the American revolution. But who ever thought that any or all of those births had any influence in promoting the revolution Let any advocate of Swedenborg show, if he can, that his principles specially contributed, in any way, to the revolutions alluded to, or that they had at the time, or have had since, any par- ticular tendency to promote them. Other things can be mentioned, and often have been mentioned, which manifestly had such a tendency. But who among the profoundest writers on the affairs of nations, whether philosophers, histori- ans, or civilians, ever perceived or imagined any connection between the reve- lations of Swedenborg, and the grand civil, moral, and intellectual changes which have occuned during the last 80 or 90 years? — p. 23. The " followers of Swedenborg" will not probably be particularly " careful to answer thee in this matter." They assume to " make" nothing " appear" on this head but their full belief and assurance that the " grand social, moral, and intellectual movement" referred to is due to the principles and agencies which Swedenborg's system discloses, and which are as much the cause of his system itself as of anything else. Nothing more, I conceive, is necessary in reply to the drift of the argument in this paragraph, which is concentrated in the following query ; — " Who among the profoundest writers on the afliairs of nations, whether philosophers, historians, or civilians, ever joerceived or imagined any connection between the revelations of Swedenborg, and the grand civil, mord, and Intel- -'- ■ — ^^"^ / REPLY TO DR. WOODS. 37 lectual changes which have occurred during the last eighty or ninety years?" The connection asserted is between these changes and the things revealed by Swe- denborg, and it is a matter of very small consequence whether this has been per- ceived by the philosophers or not. Their perception is not unfrequently very ob- tuse when they come to deal with the caitses of tilings. The historian Gibbon ^fundertook, in his great work, to assign the cattses of the rapid spread and estab- lishment of Christianity in the Roman empire. The argument was reviewed by Priestley, who showed very conclusively that what the historian took for causes were merely effects. Your argument, I humbly conceive, makes a still ^ t' greater mistake by confounding the anouncemeut of causes with the causes themselves. The assumptions hinted at in the following paragraph are indeed substantially made by Swedenborg, and I have yet to learn that they are contravened by any- thing advanced in your phamplet. " Swedenborg did indeed teach, that the men of the church would be the men> who would experience the most signal effects of the New dispensation ; that they were the ones, who would be freed from the bondage of error, and would be more spiritual, more heavenly, and more active in doing good. The whole church, Protestant as well as Catholic, before his teachings were published, was, he thought, in a state of total darkness. He takes high ground on this subject, and asks — ' Who in the Christian world would have known anything of heaven or hell, unless it had pleased the Lord to open in some one the sight of his spirit, to show and to teach.'' The whole Christian world, he thought, had gone astray from the truth, and involved itself in the grossest ' falses,' and was sunk to the lowest degredation. He held that all the churches, the whole body of Cliris- tians, were ignorant of the true meaning of the Scriptures ; and that he was com- missioned to teach what had not been known respecting God and Christ, heaven and hell, and all the great things of religion, and that the New Jerusalem Church which he ushered in, was the only true church, and was to be the salt of the earth, and the light of the world." — p. 23. So far as the " men of the church" do really experience the life and power of the New Dispensation, they do undoubtedly become " more free from the bond- age of error, more spiritual, and more heavenly" than others. If I do not add, " more active in doing good," it is not because action or life — a life of beneficent vse — is not the grand constituent element of their religion, but because the pri- mary object of their solicitude is being good, and because their views on this head may not perhaps ultimate themselves in precisely such forms of benevolent activity as you Avould deem the natural or necessary result. As a general prin- ciple, they regard the neighbor whom they are to love and to benefit as the vicinw, the one near by, and the salutary influence they would fain exert upon him they believe will be propagated, like widenmg waves, as from so many centres tUl it finally reaches the circumference of society and of the race. Looking upon this as the established order of heaven, they endeavor to conform to it, and while they oppose no impediment or remonstrance to the various reforming or missionary operations of the age, they ask to be not harshly judged if they en- deavor to accomplish their " labors of love" in the way which strikes them as most accordant with the true genius of the moral code which they have adopted. They humbly trust they are doing something for the most important interests of humanity, but what they have been taught respecting the inseparably orderly connection between Truth and Good, prevents an alliance with schemes aiming 33 REPLY TO DR. WOODS. at the latter which at the same tirae uivolve principles or doctrines that, in their judgment, compromise the former. If it be said that this is no argument why they should not league their efforts, on the ground of their oAvn faith, to secure the extension of their peculiar religious sentiments and the good which they embody, I can only reply, that their numbers, from causes which they can well assign to themselves, have been hitherto so few, and those so scattered, that concert of action, to any great degree, has been almost impracticable. But from existing omens they regard the prospect in this respect as daily brightening, and the lapse of a few years may perhaps give a new aspect, in this respect, to the New Church.* As to the alleged implication of a reigning darkness, error, and falsity in the great body of the then existing Christian church, we have no disposition to deny or evade its truth. On the contrary, our belief in the truth of the charge is most firm and unwavering. We are fully assured that Swedenborg toas " commis- sioned to teach what had not been known respecting God and Christ, heaven and hell, and all the great things of religion." We believe too that the condition of the church, under this prevailing blindness and deadness to the interior spir- itual truths of the Word, was among the chief reasons which rendered his mis- sion necessary. We cannot conceive how it were possible, that the Gospel of God our Saviour should exert its appropriate moral power over the souls of men. without a distinct revelation of the essential and formal nature of heaven and hell, and of the fixed and immutable laws by which human destiny, in the other life, is governed. We perceive that previous to his disclosures there were no definite ideas held or enunciated on these subjects — that the future life was a field of endless conjecture — that the fundamental principles on which the relation of the spiritual to the natural world subsists were likewise a theme of perpetual guessing — and that this general absence of all distinct knowledge on these heads had given rise to an almost universal relaxation of the life and power of true godliness, the essence of which is charity, and which can only flourish as it is fed and sustamed by an intelligent perception of its fixed relation, according to immutable laws, with the realities of the spiritual world. On all these subjects * " The causes why the New Church, which is called the Holy Jerusalem, is first to commence with a few, afterwards with greater numbers, and so at last to arrive to its full .state, are several ; the first is, that its doctrine, which is the doctrine of love to the Lord and charily towards the neighbor, cannot be acknowledged and thence received, except by those who are interiorly affected with truths, and no others are interiorly af- fected with truths but they who see them, and they only see them who have cultivated their intellectual (acuity, and have not destroyed it in themselves by the loves of self and of the world. Another cause is, that the doctrine of that church cannot be acknowl- edged, nor consequently received, except by those who have not confirmed themselves in doctrine, and at the same time in life, in faith alone ; confirmation in doctrine only does not hinder reception, but if it be at the same time in life it does hinder, for such persons do not know what love to the Lord is, nor what neighborly love or charity is, neither are they willing to know. The third cause is, that the Now Church on earth increases according to its increase in the world of spirits, for spirits from thence are with men, and they are from those who were in the faith of their church, whilst they lived on earth, and no others of them receive the doctrine, but those who were in the spir- itual affection of truth, such only are conjoined to lieaven, where that doctrine is, and conjoin heaven to man: the number of those in the spiritual world now increases daily, wherefore according to their increase, the church which is called the New Jerusalem increases on earth. These also were the causes, why the christian church, after the Lord left the world, increased so slow in Europe, and did not arrive to its full until an age had elapsed." — Apoc. Expl. 732. ;lotrc .M-^o x^** 5C/^<> l^-H^-t-a^yv. 3.^