Cave and Sever, Printers, 18, St. Ann's Street, Manchester.

ARE THERE TWO OPPOSITE CLASSES OF PASSAGES IN THE WRITINGS OF SWEDENBORG?

MR. TULK has replied to this question in the affirmative; I reply to it in the negative; and as he has given to his assertion the weight of his name, such as it is, I feel bound in duty to my side of the question, to give to my denial the weight of my name, such as it is. An assertion or denial not self-evidently true, derives all its weight from the authority of its author; from an unknown author it can derive no stamp of value. On this ground I give to the present paper the signature of my own name; not because I consider such a proceeding generally commendable or useful.

Mr. Tulk, in reply to the citation of certain passages, by the editor of the Intellectual Repository, says, (in page 420) "I am acquainted with other passages, * * * in which Swedenborg shews how those passages are to be understood, so as to enable his readers to avoid the rocks on which you and your correspondent have unfortunately struck."

So then it appears, according to Mr. Tulk, that the writings of Swedenborg contain two sets of passages, of a totally distinct and opposite character, and so opposite in their quality and tendency, in his opinion, that he compares the one class to dangerous rocks, and the other to the mariner's knowledge by which those rocks are avoided ! Is this an accurate statement, or not? Most certainly not, I reply with the utmost confidence, on the credit of nearly forty years' acquaintance with these writings. But with what degree of intelligence I have studied them, it is not for me to hazard a thought; however, as my brethren are acquainted with some of the fruits of my humble endeavours, they will be able to judge of this for themselves. They are also acquainted with Mr. Tulk's ability in this line, so far as it is discoverable from the N. S. NO. 72.-VOL.VI.

2 U

few small publications he has laid before the public. So much, then, for the point of authority.

If there exist in Swedenborg's writings, two classes of passages so distinct and opposite as Mr. Tulk imagines, they must be distinguishable according to discrete degrees. One class must be lower in degree than the other, and must be distinct and different from the other, as the natural and spiritual degrees of the mind are discretely distinct and different from each other. One class of passages must speak from the letter of the Word, and according to it, as it is understood by those who are NOT in illustration from the spiritual sense; and the other must speak the language of those who ARE in illustration; thus one class will deduce, as Mr. Tulk affirms it does, merely natural truths, which, unexplained, are dangerous rocks, or, in other words, convey false ideas; while the other class will contain spiritual truths, which are given for the correction of the false ideas conveyed by the other class! Undoubtedly THE WORD itself is written according to discrete degrees, so that, as Swedenborg teaches, there are found in the letter things contradictory, namely, appearances of truth which are to be explained by the genuine truths found in other parts; the former being contrary, and the latter agreeable to the spiritual sense, which exists discretely above and within the letter. But are the writings of Swedenborg written according to this plan? Most emphatically I affirm, THEY CERTAINLY ARE NOT. And I challenge any one and every one to the proof of the existence of any such two discrete classes of passages in the writings of Swedenborg. For myself, I solemnly declare, that I never found a vestige of any thing of the kind, or the slightest possible evidence of any such fact. It is my experience, that, from the beginning to the end, Swedenborg uniformly speaks the sentiments and exhibits the views of a man who IS in illustration, and who NEVER deliberately expresses himself as if he were not. I affirm that there do not exist two classes of passages, discretely distinct, either intentionally or unintentionally on the part of their author; and that any attempt to classify passages in this manner, being at variance altogether with the author's intention, is most unwarrantable and unjust.

What should we say of a modern writer on chemistry, who should deliberately express himself sometimes according to the manner of the old school, and sometimes after the manner of the new, leaving his readers to puzzle out a line of distinction between his inaccurate old, and his accurate new ideas, whereby to institute the correction, or rather

* It is because the notion of two classes of passages is entertained by some others, who do not, however, go the length of Mr. T., that I am more especially impelled to bring this subject forward.

nullification, of the former by the latter? What should we say of him but that he was a silly writer for his pains? And what would be the best way to dispose of such a publication? Why, the sooner it were committed to the flames, the better. And thus should I be disposed to say concerning the writings of Swedenborg, could I be convinced that he sometimes deliberately speaks the language of error, and sometimes the language of truth, in order merely to puzzle his readers, and give them the trouble of correcting the former by the latter. The sooner the world were rid of such a capricious, foolish, and mischievous writer as Mr. Tulk makes Swedenborg to be, the better. It would be idle to say that the two classes of passages are not to be described as errors and truths, but as appearances of truth, and genuine truths, for who can deny that mere appearances presented by man for literal construction, as if they were genuine truths, are errors, and nothing else? It is an appearance of truth, for instance, that God is angry, and repents, but is it not an error to assert this? Does Swedenborg ever say that God is angry or repents? Does he ever throw the veil of appearance wantonly over the truth in order to conceal its beauty from his readers? Are not his writings, from beginning to end, developments of truth intended "to destroy the veil that is upon all nations?" I deny, in the most positive terms that can be imagined, that these writings contain a single passage requiring correction, or intended to be corrected, by other passages. Let us not be deceived by the ambiguity of words. Mr. Tulk declares that certain passages are to be explained by other passages, but this is not what he means; he means corrected, I might say, nullified, and not merely explained, otherwise what becomes of his comparison of these passages which require explanation, to dangerous rocks? Is there anything dangerous in truth? We correct, as well as explain, the appearances of the letter of the Word, by the genuine truths therein; but while Mr. Tulk not only corrects, but actually nullifies one class of Swedenborg's passages by the other, he finds it convenient to make use of the more ambiguous word explain, (for I presume the words "shew how those passages are to be understood," mean the same as explain them) for the word explain applies to differences according to continuous degrees; but the word correct only to differences according to discrete degrees. A truth truly declared, may require further explanation; but a truth not truly declared (if the contradiction in terms may be tolerated) requires correction. Now, are there in Swedenborg's writings any truths or affirmations of truth untruly declared, in order to be corrected by other affirmations, and that intentionally? I answer, there are none such, and I challenge to the proof.

Why, if Swedenborg's writings were such a bundle of intentionally,

and I add, capriciously-constructed riddles, as Mr. Tulk makes them to be; if they contained such traps and pitfalls for feeble travellers in search of truth as that gentleman's description implies, they would deserve to be burnt by the hangman, instead of being magnified by those eloquent eulogies which Mr. Tulk has sometimes publicly pronounced upon them!

Let me ask any teacher of religion, whether (with the exception of such appearances as the rising and setting of the sun, which cannot be avoided) he ever purposely, or so far as he knows, unwittingly, expresses himself in a manner liable to be misunderstood? Does he not always endeavour to express himself, when addressing adults, in the best and clearest way he can, according to the measure of wisdom given unto him? It is true, that when a passage of the Word, or a doctrinal idea, is noticed more or less incidentally, he takes more or less care to explain it, and he explains it more or less fully. If it is important to explain it fully, in respect to its bearing upon his present or main object, he will explain it fully; if otherwise, he will notice it more or less slightly. It is obviously impossible, on EVERY occasion of referring to a truth, to explain and present it with equal lucidity and fulness. There must be a difference, but in the case of all writers and teachers, without exception, it is a difference according to continuous, and not according to discrete degrees. I demand, then, on what ground is Swedenborg assumed to have written according to a plan never adopted by any ingenuous, intelligent writer?—a plan which it seems to be the exclusive privilege of the Author of the Holy Word to adopt, because He only is acquainted with the states of all men. Besides, nothing can be more simple and easy than the rules Swedenborg has laid down, to enable us to discriminate between genuine and apparent truths in the letter of the Word; but where,-WHERE, I ask, has he told us that he himself sometimes expresses himself according to the appearance, and sometimes according to the reality? If he has told us this, WHERE, I also demand, has he given us a rule whereby to ascertain when he is speaking in one way, and when in the other? If he has thus capriciously dealt with his readers, and never told them of it; or if he has candidly advertised them of his strange mode of proceeding, but given them no discriminating rule, what are we to think of him? Where is his charity, on the first supposition, and where is his wisdom and sense of propriety, on the second? Mr. Tulk finds Swedenborg declaring, positively and frequently, that the Lord felt direful sufferings as a man; but Mr. Tulk denies all conscious feeling to the Lord as a man, declaring that he had no conscious feeling but that He was Himself (from "first to last principles" of course) the Omnipotent God!