""4 I »; rJ ^ '^1 NEW CHURCH MISCELLANIES OR, ESSAYS ECCLESIASTICAL, DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL, BY GEORGE BUSH. [Republislied from the New Church Repository.] WM. McGEOKGE, No. 47 BIBLE HOUSE. Boston : Otis Clapp ; Philadelphia : Boerick & Tafel ; London: Wm. Whitb. 1855. JOHN P. PBALL, PEINXER, xo. 9 SPEXICE-ST. N. Y. M-1VZ35 CONTENTS. PiGB, The Priesthood and the Kingship, 5 Preaching, 69 The Ministry, 82 The N. j. Magazine and the N. C. Ministry, - - 103 N. C. Organization and Gotbenment, .... 120 A Trained and Professional Clergy, ... 146 The Party of Order and the Party op Liberty, - - 157 Aphokisms on Slavery and Abolition, ... 165 Pseudo-Spiritualism, 239 Sleep, 28» The N. C. System referable solely to a Divine Origin, 314 Swedenborg and Paul, 369 ERRATA. On page 346, ninth line from bottom, for "spiritual illumined," read "spirit ual illuminees." On page 364, ninth line from the bottom, for "remorseless" read "re- morsefuV THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. (N. C. Kepos. April, May. June, 1853.) " And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out ofthe mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel ; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now, therefore, if ye will obey my Toice indeed, and keep my covenaut, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people : for all the ear(h is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation." — Ex. xix. 8-6. The distinction and pre-eminence which accrued to the people of Israel, as a representative people, constitutes the theme of a large portion of the Sacred Volume. Their history as a peo]jle has ever been regarded as one of the most striliing phases of the Divine Providence, and yet it has been deemed a problem how such a people could have stood in a peculiar state of favoritism with Heaven. They were of a genius so perverse and intract able — so prone to idolatry — so dull, so gross, so carnal — that it seems incredible that such a prerogative should have been accorded to them. The difficulty on this score, in respect to the whole nation, is substantially the same with that in regard to David, one of ita brightest and most distinguished sons. "With the history of this remarkable personage in our hands, it has been with thousands a serious question how he could have been denominated " a man after God's own heart," when his conduct, on various occasions, would appear to have stamped him rather as a man after the Devil's own heart, and that too in despite of many interesting and attractive traits in his character. The solution of this difficulty is to be found in the views of the Divine "Word, and the Divine Providence, which are opened and inculcated in the writings of the 2 6 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. New Church on the subject of representatives. " It is a thing of indifference," says our illumined author, " what the quality of the man who represents, whether he be evil or good ; for evil men may alike represent and did represent the Lord's Divine (principle). The same may appear from the representatives which exist even at this day ; for all Kings, whosoever they are, and of what soever quality, by virtue of the principle of royalty ap pertaining to them, represent the Lord ; in like manner all Priests, whosoever or of whatsoever quality they are, by virtue -of the priestly principle. The principle of royalty {regium), and the priestly principle {sacerdotale) is holy, whatsoever be the nature and quality of the per son who ministers them ; hence it is, that the Word taught by a wicked person is alike holy, as when taught by a good person, and also the Sacrament of Baptism and the Holy Supper, and the like."— ^. O. 3670. Now we learn that the Jewish nation sustained a representative character, and that their whole outward history was a de signed forecasting of the interior or spiritual history of the true church, in all subsequent time. The truth in volved in this position is not so entirely and exclusively of New Church origin, but that it has been dimly per ceived in all ages, by the possessors of the divine revela tion, that there was a latent allusion in the histoiy of Israel to the Christian Church. The bondage of that people in Egypt — their deliverance thence — their long sojourn in the wilderness — and their entrance into Canaan — have ever been regarded as a significant adum bration or type of the interior or spiritual history of the Lord's true church, in the various periods of time. On the principle of representation, their character as a people may have been internally bad or sadly defective, and yet they may have answered this end; and thus viewed, their whole history is a kind of pictorial shadowing forth of the inner career and experience of the Christian man. This career and experience may.be read on this symboli cal tablet somewhat as ^Eneas read the fortunes of Troy depicted on the walls of Dido's palace at Carthage. THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. i In this typical character, therefore, of the Jewish race, we have a key to the import of the passage before us — " Ye sliall be to me a holy nation, a kingdom of priests." It is palpable that the declaration never became a literal truth, as the priesthood was restricted to the family of Aaron ; nor for the same reason was it predicable solely of the nation itself It looked or penetrated through them to some other people in whom it should receive a more emphatic fulfilment.. But, in order to grasp this more adequately, it will be expedient to go a little into the nature of priesthood and royalty — the mitre and the crown — and learn what is implied by both. "When we consider that the whole Jewish ritual was appointed by Jehovah himself, we must of necessity sup pose that there was some worthy mystery shadowed forth by the splendid and pompous array of dresses and duties pertaining to the High Priest and his subordinate officials. Aaron,invested with his pontifical robes, was, next to the Tabernacle and the Ark ofthe Covenant, the most conspicuous feature of that dispensation. Upon him it devolved to lead the worship of the nation ; to preside at the altar service ; to see that the sacrificial rites were duly performed, and all the various minutise of the cere monial strictly observed. Behold him, then, coming forth from the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle, his head adorned with a mitre, and that part of it which covered the forehead having a golden plate with the in scription, KoDESH LA-HovAH, hoUncss to the Lord ; his shoulders crowned with onyx epaulettes, and bearing the appendant ephod ; his bosom covered with the breast plate, glittering with precious stones, and his robe fringed with pomegranates and bells, which latter tinkled continually as he ministered at the altar and through the camp. Behold him, I say, thus arrayed in " garments of glory," and let us ask ourselves whether such a splendid pageant could have been got up by the Divine command, simply to feast the eyes of the congregation upon the parade and glitter of a sacred raree-show. Could such a. display have been designed as a mere gewgaw to de- 8 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. light the senses of a gross and worldly-minded people, as the uniform of soldiers does the eyes of children ? Surely not. "We must recognize some higher aim in these ap pointments. We must realize in thera a representative display, and a display in the first instance of the Lord himself, for He is pre-eminently the substance of these magnificent shadows. Look then at him through the transparent veil of the priestly ordinances. Gaze at Aaron till Aaron disappears from view, and you behold the Lord himself as the grand and absorbing reality — the sum and substance — the body and verity — of the Aaronic mysteries. But the simple recognition of the Lord as the substance of the representation, will still leave us far short of at taining an adequate idea of priesthood. It is peculiar to the spirit of New Church teachings that they prompt to a process of breaking down or resolution of all generals into particulars, and of particulars into singulars. The mind of the Newchurchman, acunjinated by the habits which it necessarily forms of exact discrimination, is led onward to a close analysis of the component ideas enter ing into all general and comprehensive terms. When, therefore, he finds the Lord himself denominated a Priest, he is conscious that he has no clear perception of the truth involved in this designation, until he ascertains the essential principle in the Divine nature of which this title is more especially predicated. Now, as the fundamental ideas of the Divine Being are those of love and wisdom, or goodness and truth, so it is evident that we are to seek for the grounds of the Divine priestly dignity in one or the other of these principles. And here it is that we are prepared to welcome the light that is afforded us in the following paragraph from our illustrious authority, in ex plaining the passage, Eev. xx. 6, " They shall be priests of God and of Christ." ^ " By priests, iu the Word, are meant those who are in the good of love, and by kings those who are in the truths of wisdom : wherefore it is said above, ' Jesus Christ hath made us kings and priests' Apoc. i. 6 ; and likewise, ' the Lamb hath made us kings and -priests, that we THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSmP. 9 may reign over the earth,' v, 16 ; and it may be seen plainly, that the Lord will not make men kings and priests, but that He will make angels of those who are in truths of wisdom, and in the good of love from Him ; that by kings are meant those who are in truths of wisdom from the Lord, and that the Lord is called a king in consequence of His divine truth, may be seen above, n. 31, 625, 941, 1242 : but the reason why by priests are meant those who are in the good of love from the Lord, is, because the Lord is divine love and divine wisdom, or, what amounts to the same, divine good and divine truth ; and the Lord in consequence of His divine love or divine good, is called a priest, and in consequence of His divine wisdom or divine truth is called a king : hence it is, that there are two kingdoms, into which the heavens are distinguished, the celestial and the spiritual ; and the celestial kingdom is called the Lord's priestly kingdom, for the angels there are recipients of divine love or divine good from the Lord, and the spiritual kingdom is called the Lord's royal kingdom, for the angels there are recipients of divine wisdom or divine truth from the Lord. It is said that they are recipients of divine good and divine truth from the Lord, but it is to be observed, that they are continually receiving them, for divine good and divine truth cannot be appropriated to any angel or man, so as to be his own, but only so that they may seem to be his, because they are divine ; wherefore no angel or man can produce from himself any thing good or true, which is really good and true in itself ; whence it is plain, that they are kept in what is good and true by the Lord, and that they are so kept continually ; for which reason, if any one comes to heaven, and thinks that good and truth are appropriated to him as his own, he is immediately let down from heaven and instructed. From these considerations then it may appear, that by their being priests of God and Christ, is signified because those are kept by the Lord in the good of love, and thereby in the truths of wisdom." — A. E. 1265. From this we learn that the priestly element in the Divine nature is the good of love, and that it is the same principle, in its measure, which forms the basis of a true spiritual priesthood in the man of the church. It is this principle, therefore, which is represented by the external official priesthood of the Old Dispensation. But on this head we shall have more to say in the sequel. In the ancient representative church both the priest hood and the royalty were conjoined in one person, be cause the good and the truth which proceed from the Lord are united, as they are united also in the angels of Heaven. Melchizedek, " king of righteousness, and king of peace," may be considered as a prominent type 2* 10 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. of this order of things, in which character, or as a repre sentative of the Lord, he blessed Abraham, the greatest man then living, and offered him bread and wine in reference to these two principles, they being the sj^mbols respectively of the good of love and the truth of faith. In this relation we" perceive more adequately the pur port of the Divine declaration, "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." The same train of remark throws light upon the -historical phases in which the race of Israel is presented to us in the Word. In its earlier periods these two functions were concen trated in one person, who acted as both priest and king, and of this we have evident traces in Homer and Hesiod. But eventually, on account of the wars and idolatries of that people, the functions were separated, and rulers presided over the civil, and priests over the religious affairs of the nation. They were subsequently united again in Eli and Samuel, but still the genius of the people was so corrupt that the representation under this form could not well stand, and therefore it pleased the Divine Wisdom that a marked separation should again take place, and the Divine truth be represented by kings, and the Divine good by priests. The division of the kingdom, at a still later period into that of Judah and of Israel was providentially ordered with reference to the same representative import, the kingdom of Judah de noting good, and that of Israel truth.* On the same * " In the representative church amongst the posterity of Jacob, there was first a kingdom of judges, afterwards a kingdom of priests, and lastly a kingdom of kings, and by the kingdom of judges was represented Divine Truth from Divine Good; but by the kingdom of priests, who were also judges, was represented Divine Good from which Divine "Truth is derived; and by the kingdom of kings was represented Divine Truth without Divine Good ; but when somethinsj of the priesthood was adjoined also to the regal [office], then was also represented by kings the Divine Truth, in which there was so much of good as there was of tbe priesthood adjoined to the regal office. All these things were instituted in the Jewish Church, that by them might be represented states of heaven, for in heaven there are two kingdoms, one which is called the celestial kingdom, and the other which ia called the spiritual kingdom ; the celestial kingdom is what is called the priesthood, and the spiritual kingdom what is called the royalty of the THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 11 ground it undoubtedly is, that in the Divine providence a similar disjunction has taken place and been long per petuated in the world, whereby the officers of religious and civil life are universally distinct, constituting the two great departments of life, action, and interest. It is here that we recognize the reason why the main aspect induced upon the nations ofthe earth ia poliiicalinstead of ecclesiastical, for in the outset we learn that men were associated together as churches, and not as Tcingdoms. The predominance of the secular over the sacred in this way shows the corresponding prevalence of truth over good. As this inversion of states had previously found place in men's interiors, it was therefore of the Divine wisdom that the institutions and polities under which they lived should be accommodated to the perverted ex igencies of their condition. But just in proportion as the moral state of mankind is wrought upon and reno vated by the new influences that are being brought to bear upon it — just as the multiform evils of the existing order of things are got rid of — just in that proportion will there be a re-union or re-conjunction of these two func tions, the sacerdotal and the magisterial, for the simple reason that there will be a more intimate union of the good and the truth which they respectively represent. Every man will be becoming more and more his own priest, as will every man his own physician, and his own lawyer. The lawyers of the more advanced eras of the church's development will answer more fully to the designation as employed in the New Testament, where it is applied to those who search into and expound the Divine law instead of thecountless complexities of human codes. But to return to the words of our text, " Ye shall be L ord ; in the latter Divine Truth reigns, in the former Divine Good ; and whereas the representative of the celestial kingdom began to perish, when they sought a king, therefore on this occasion, that the representative of the Lord's kingdom in the heavens might still be continued, the Jews were sep arated from the Israelites, and by the Jewish kingdom was represented the celestial kingdom of the Lord, and by the Israelitish kingdom His spiritual kingdom."—^. G. 8770. 12 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. unto me a kingdom of priests," &c. "We have already remarked that this language never received a literal ac complishment even in the best days of the Jewish com monwealth, when they came the nearest to that life of obedience which was the condition of its bein^ fulfilled to them. The priesthood, instead of being diffused over the whole people in common, was restricted to one family, and one line, whose prerogative, in this respect, was guarded by the most explicit provisions and the most fearful sanctions. How then was the promise realized in its comprehensive import to that people? How were the sons of Jacob, as a whole, ever made a "kingdom of priests ?" Was it, in fact, ever fulfilled to them at all ? JEven if we admit that to the truly and interiorly good among them there was an intrinsic applicability of the term, yet of what a mere fraction of the race have we reason to suppose this would hold good? Are we not forced, by the tone and tenor of their history, to deny to them, as a body, the blessing ofthe promise, and to look a long way onward and downward for the actual accom plishment of what is truly intended by the burden of the words ? Nothing is more obvious than that a multitude of things set forth in the Old Testament received their ful fillment in the New. So, in the present case, the proper way is to view the words as applicable to all true Chris tians under the New Testament, and especially under the New Dispensation, in whom they receive a more full, and adequate, and signal accomplishment. Let the casket of the literal Israel be conceived as opened, and the pearls of the Lord's New Church appear. Let us travel on wards with Isaiah and all the prophets to the happier times of the New Economy, and read in the epistle of Peter the coincident language which proves that the true Christians of his own and subsequent ages are the real subjects of the promise here made. " Unto you there fore which believe he is precious, but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner. And a stone THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KDfGSHIP. 13 of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient ; whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people ; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."* Here we have Peter, whom so many so-called Christians vifould make out the primate of the Church — Peter, whose pretended successors have continued to exalt themselves to the throne, and to trample the people in the dust — this same Peter makes over to all good Chris tians the title of priests, and so far from arrogating to himself any peculiar preeminence on account of what the Lord said to him respecting his being the Rock on which the Church was built, he obviously makes Christ the Rock, and says that they are " lively stones built up unto Him" as the true basis on which the Church rests. It may not be necessary to suppose that the apostle un derstood the full force of his own language, but to those who are possessed of the true " key of knowledge" the phrase " lively stones" conveys the idea of living truths, or truths personified and embodied in the spiritually living men of the Church. We see then here developed the grand truth of our text, that those who obey the Lord's voice, and keep his covenant, become to him a peculiar treasure, and a king dom of priests. Accordant with this both in letter and in spirit is the language of Isaiah and of John. Is. Ixi. 4-6 : " And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the * " To be a peculium (or a peculiar people) signifies to be the Lord's, for a peculium denotes property, and thus possession, and it denotes that in such cage Divine Truth would appertain to them above others. The reason why they who have the Word are a peculium, and a property above others, is, because they know the truths and goods of faith, and, in consequence, can lire the life of heaven, and be thereby more especially conjoined with the Lord than others ; for the good which makes heaven with man has its quality from the truth of faith, thus good becomes more celestial or more di vine, with those who have genuine truths, which are truths from the Word, supposing they are kept." — A. C. 8768. 14 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. waste cities, the desolations of many generations. And Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your ploughmen and your vine dressers. But ye shall be named the priests of the Lord; men shall call you the ministers of our Ood: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and iu their glory shall ye boast yourselves." Ver. 21 : " And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord." Eev. i. 5, 6 : " And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful Witness, and the First-begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us MTigs and priests unto God and his Father ; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." What can be understood from this but that the inter nal spiritual prerogative indicated by the name and an swering to the outward function accrues or inures to every one, even the humblest disciple in the Lord's kingdorn, just so far as he is in the spirit of obedience to the Di vine voice, and in the keeping of the covenant which Jehovah hath ordained ? Our previous explanations leave it beyond doubt as to what is interiorly conveyed in the purport of the term. By a priest is implied the good of love, and by a king, truth, and by the conjunc tion of the two is denoted that these two principles are to be found in union in those who come by their lives into the sphere of the Lord's peculium. As it was pre dicted of the Lord himself that he should sit as a priest on his throne, that is, uniting the royal and sacerdotal dignity in himself, so is it to be, in their measure, with his true people, and with all of them. This is confirmed by the words of the apostle when he says of Christians that tliey "have received an unction from the Holy One," compared with the Divine declaration, " for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout all their generation." As then we have it upon divine authority that every good man is a priest and a king in a spiritual sense, so THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 15 under the present dispensation we are taught to recog nize no other priesthood than that which is spiritual. What other is there ?'/i Was not the Jewish priesthood representative ? And has not the coming of the Lord abolished representatives ? Is any thing more obvious in the writings of Swedenborg than that the representa tives of the Jewish system have all passed away, and that we have come into the very reality of the thing sig nified ? Baptism and the Lord's Supper were retained, and these only. " Washings and many such like things were commanded and enjoin ed upon the house of Israel, because the church instituted with them was a representative church, and this was such that it prefigured the Christian church which was to come. Wherefore when the Lord came into the world. He abrogated the representatives, which were all ex ternal, and instituted a church, of which all things should be internal : thus the Lord jsut away the figures, and revealed the effigies them selves ; as one removes a veil or opens a door, and causes the things within not only to be seen, but also to be approached. Of all these things the Lord retained only two, which should contain, in one com plex, all things of the internal church ; which two things are Baptism instead of washings, and the Holy Supper instead of the Lamb." — T. C. R. 670. " The representatives of internal things ceased by the coming of the Lord. The case herein is like that of the soul or spirit of man and his body ; the soul or spirit of a man is his internal, and the body is the external ; or, what is the same thing, the soul or spirit is the very effigy of the man, but the body is its representative image : when the man rises again, then the representative image, or his external, which is the body, is put off, for then he is in the internal, or the very effigy itself."— J. C. 4835. In the transition from the Old to the New System, the Temple, the Priest, the Altar, the Laver, tbe Incense, and the Sacrifice have all vanished away, and the Lord himself stands forth " sufficient and alone" the exclusive Priest, Prophet, King, Head, and Husband, of his church. Yet we have but to tum over the page of history to see that this great truth has been grievously lost sight of, and a raging propensity evinced to return again to the 16 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. old antiquated and superannuated idea of priesthood. Accordingly, if we enter the precincts of the Roman Catholic Church, we find the leading features of the Jew ish system completely reproduced. There is the Priest, and the Altar, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and, to crown the whole, there is the Arch-Pontiff, the Grand High Priest of the Christian Churc, its SupremeHead, which gives visible unity to the whole body. This poli ty is sustained by a specious kind of reasoning, which is in effect not unfrequently enlisted in behalf of general conventions or synods, that stand virtually in the same relation to the body of the church as does an individual pope. The principle is by no means confined to the pa pacy. It is maintained more or less in all churches in which the esprit du corps, or spirit of sect, is strong. But in whatever form it exists — whether of Pope, Bish op, Council, Conference, Convention, or Assembly, it is in effect the same, and is utterly and eternally abhorrent to the true genius of the true church. But however clear and unequivocal the principles above enunciated, there is still with the advocates of a Christian Priesthood a persistent leaning upon represen tatives which goes to nullify the force of all we have thus far said on the subject. " There were surely priests," it is objected, " under the old dispensation, and if they did not represent priests under the new, what did they represent ?" We have already replied to this, that the celestial element in heaven and the church is that which the priestly function was designed to repre sent, as is the spiritual that which is bodied forth by kings. By these two classes of persons was represented then the two distinct but intimately reX&ted. principles of food and truth, and when these principles entered, at the rst coming of the Lord, upon a more substantial devel opment in the church, the representatives themselves were formally abolished, just as a shadow disappears when the meridian sun shines perpendicularly down up on the object which caused it. The proof of this we have already given. If now we admit, what is so clear- THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. l7 ly taught in the writings of the New Church, that these principles were foreshadowed in these types, we are bound to consider the import of the representatives exhausted in them, unless we are furnished with some express intimation to the contrary. If it be affirmed that priestly persons under the Levitical economy re presented an order of men devoted to ecclesiastical functions under the old or new Christian dispensation, we are at liberty to demand the authority for the posi tion, which we have never yet been so happy as to meet with. At the same time, we are far from holding that the above-mentioned principles exist as mere floating ab stractions. They are principles that are embodied — and embodied too in living men of the Church, but not in a so-termed distinct clerical order, contra-distinguished from the laitj, as was the Levitical tribe among the Jews from the other tribes. Such a distinction we affirm to be unknown to the teachings of the Christian dispensa tion. Still the sacerdotal good and the regal truth are essential elements of the church, and must be operative in the persons of its members. One may have a predo minance of one principle, and another of the other, but they are both found, in some degree, in every member, and no such thing is possible, on orderly grounds, as a restriction or appropriation of the priestly function, for instance, to a particular class, to the exclusion of others. All are priests, in some measure, and on this basis, the church is constituted an universal ministry. This, how ever, is in noway inconsistent with a special ministry or teaching function to be exercised by those in whom these principles shall assert or pronounce themselves with pe culiar emphasis and force, and in whom they shall be recognized and acknowledged by others. I am aware that many find it difficult even to understand what is meant by a " teaching minister," when he is viewed other wise than as pertaining to a distinct clerical order. But the distinction is intrinsically intelligible, and will be more easily understood in proportion as the church emerges from the false position in which it is now held .3 18 ^ THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. captive, as it were, by reason of its long and unquestion ing wont to priestly ideas and institutions. It is difiicult indeed for one to see tbe false while he is mainly in it. How is the mind of a native monarchist taxed to conceive adequately of the state of things under a republic ? How next to impossible for a minion of the Romish hierarchy to entertain the idea of church-freedom with which we are all familiar in America? Yet when the kingly or priestly institution is subjected to a rigid inquest into its ground or authority, how does the evidence vanish into thin air? In the present case, we deny the legitimate existence of a priesthood in the New Christian Church, from the utter absence of all positive proof in its favor. That mention is indeed made of priests again and again in the writings of Swedenborg is unquestionable, but tho con text will almost invariably show that the church to which his priests pertain is not the church of tbe New Jerusalem, which was then but just commencing, but the church of Christendom of which he spake as it was, and to which he freely conceded a certain degree of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and that too as re ceived through the mediam of the laying on of hands in ordination. It is we conceive of this priesthood or clergy that he speaks when he says, that the Divine proceeding passes " through men to men, and in the church chiefly from the clergy to the laity?'' So again when he says (A. R. 567) that the clergy are in the internals, and the laity in the externals, of the church. We perceive in this and several kindred passages of the same work, no reference to the New Church, but solely to the church that pre ceded it. The same is to be said of the oft-cited passage, T. C. R. 146, in which our author affirms that " the di vine virtue and operation which is signified by the Holy Spirit consists, with the clergy in particular, in illustra tion and instruction, the reason of which is that they be long to their office, and inauguration into the ministry brings them along with it." One has but to read the whole section connectedly to see that its reference is THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 19 primarily to the clergy of the old church, who were in imminent danger of mistaking a fiery zeal for a divine inspiration. It will be observed too that they are spoken of in a highly derogatory and objurgatory vein, as em bracing among them deniers of God and despisers of the Word, Jesuits, enthusiasts, and Lucifers — predicates that we can by no means believe applicable to the truly illus trated and instructed man of the New Church. It is, moreover, obvious from a multitude of passages in other parts ofthe writings that true illustration is the privilege, not of an ordained or inaugurated clergy only, but of all who are in a suitable state to receive it. The following are to the point : " Every one is illustrated and informed from the Word according to the affection of truth, and the degree of the desire thereof, and according to the faculty of receiving." — A. C- 9382. " The Lord leads those who love truths, and will them from Him self ; all such are enlightened when they read the Word, for the Lord is the Word, and speaks ivith every one according to his comprehension. Men are enlightened variously, every one according to the quality of his affection and consequent intelligence. They who are in the spirit ual affection of truth are elevated into the light of heaven so as to perceive the illustration." — A. E, 1183. " They are in illustration, when they read the Word, who are in the affection of truth for the sake of truth', and for the sake of the good of life : and not they who are in the affection of truth for the sake of self- glory, of reputation, or of ^ain." — A. C- 9382, 10,548, 10,551, Index. " The divine truth is the Word, and they who are of that church (the New Church) are illustrated from the spiritual light of the Word by influx out of heaven from the Lord, and this by reason that they ac knowledge the Divine (principle) in the human of the Lord, and from Him are in the spiritual affection of truth : by these and no others is spiritual light received, which continually flows in through heaven from the Lord with all who read the Word ; hence is their illustration." — A. E. 759. With these paragraphs before us it would seem impos sible to perceive any special restriction of the privilege of illustration to the clergy. It is set forth as the pre rogative of all those who are in the affection of truth for 20 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. the truth's sake. So far then as this spiritual illustration is a criterion of clerical character, we are to recognize that character as existing wherever the illustration exists ; and this is surely not among any one class of the men of the church. The clerical function evidently depends upon states of mind or life, and not upon official desig nation or inaugurating rites. The office properly resides with men of special qualifications, and those qualifica tions are not transmitted, however they may be recog nized, by any particular form of induction. We are all aware of the great stress laid upon a passage in the " Canons," in which it is said that tbe Divine proceeding, which is called the Holy Spirit, passes in the Church chiefiy from the clergy to the laity, and that the clergy, because they are to teach doctrine from the Word, are to be inaugurated by the promise {sponsionem, covenant) of the Holy Spirit, and by the representation of its trans lation, though it is to be, or will be, received by the clergy according to the faith of their life, by which we suppose is meant the quality of their life as governed by their faith. In this, however, we see nothing inconsist ent with what might properly be said in reference to an existing order of things in the Christian Church in Swedenborg's time, and without any special allusion to the economy of the church ofthe New Jerusalem, which was subsequently to be established. And we are con firmed in this by the fact, that in.the view which Swe denborg gives us of the influx that accompanies illustra tion — that illustration which shall enable a man to teach doctrine, for, " to be illustrated through heaven from the Lord is to be illustrated by the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is the Divine proceeding from the Lord" — we see nothing that limits it particularly to the clergy. " It may be expedient briefly to say in what manner influx is eflect- ed by which is illustration : the angels, alike with men, perceive the Word when it is read, but the angels spiritually and men naturally. The man whose internal is open also perceives the Word spiritually, but this he is ignorant of while he lives in the world ; because his' spiritual thought flows in into the natural in the external man, and THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 21 there presents itself to be seen ; nevertheless that interior thought is what illustrates, and by which is effected khe influx from the Lord." — A. C. 10,551. It will be hard to detect anything exclusively official in this, and so also of the extract which follows : " Immediate revelation is not given, unless what has been in the Word, which revelation, as delivered by the prophets and evangelists, and in the historical parts of the Word, is such, that every one may be taught according to the affections of his love, and the consequent thoughts of his understanding. Illustration is as follows : light con joined to heat flows in through heaven from the Lord ; this heat, which is divine love, affects the will, whence man has the affection of good ; and this light, which is divine wisdom, affects the understanding, whence man has the thought of truth." — A. E- 1177. That this is the common privilege of all good men in the church, and belongs primarily to them, is to be in ferred from the phraseology in T. C. R. 146, before cited, in which it is said that the divine operation, reformation, regeneration, renovation, vivification, sanctification, jus tification, purification, remission of sins, and finally sal vation, flow in from the Lord, as loell with the clergy as with the laity. If the clergy had been principal in this matter we should have expected this to read in the re verse order, " as well with the laity as with the clergy.'''' How obvious the conclusion that the laity are the primary recipients of these operations, and that the information needed by the reader was that the clergy participated with them in the reception. The drift of the language is clearly to guard against the impression that the opera tions in question were confined to the laity. But how in congruous would it be to put the statement in this form on the supposition that the clergy were of course to take precedence in this matter ? "What would be the natural inference if one in describing the worship of a Christian Church should say that the choir, as well as the congre- gation^ took part in the chanting ? What else would be implied by this but that the congregation at large W3,s the party which was understood ordinarily to take the 3* 22 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. lead in this service ? And that the clause respecting the choir was designed to supply information which would otherwise be lacking. In our remarks above on the celebrated passage in the " Canons" respecting the communication or transmission of the Holy Spirit, or the Divine Proceeding, we have offered some reasons for questioning the common appli cation of our author's words. AYe deem ourselves, indeed, forbidden to apply the Canon above cited to a sacerdotal or clerical order from the fact that Swedenborg charac terizes the tenet of succession of ordinations into the ministry as an " elevation from the love of dominion over the holy things of the church, and over heaven, grounded in self-love, which is the devil ; as is also the transferring of the Holy Spirit from one man to another," A. Ji. 802. We of course admit that this is spoken originally and directly of the succession of the vicarship of Christ and the Priesthood in the Papacy, but are still constrained to recognize in it a principle in effect acted upon in the New Church, when it is held that the clergy perpetuate their own order by manual or " tactual" suc cession. This principle we understand Swedenborg to repudiate ; and from the following, with other passages of his works, we infer that the genuine order of trans mission is rather from the so-called laity to the so-called clergy than the reverse. " When the Levites were purified, and the ministry of the priesthood under Aaron was ascribed to them, it was commanded that two bul locks should be brought, with a meat offering, and that Aaron should bring the Levites before Jehovah, and the sons of Israel should lay their hands upon the Levites, Num. viii. 7. By the sons of Israel lay ing their hands upon the Levites, was signified the translation of the power of ministering for them, aud reception by the Levites, thus separation." Here is the recognition of an original inherent right in the people at large to minister for themselves, but for adequate reasons an economy was to be established, under which the exercise of this right, in their own per sons, was to be waived as a general fact, and the function THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 23 discharged by proxy. It does not appear that this amounted to an actual divesting of the people of the right, but rather to a simple foregoing, for the sake of peculiar advantages, of a prerogative with which they were originally endowed. Now, when we look at this Levitical institute in its representative import, we read in it the pre-intimation of that order which we have all along held forth as the genuine order of the New Church, to wit, that while all the members of the church are spiritually priests and kings, and thus every one poten- itally a church in the least form, yet the advanced states of some on the score of intelligence and affection quali fy them in a superior degree to act as leaders and teachers of their brethren, and that, consequently, it is perfectly competent for these brethren, without the least reference to any pre-existing ordained authority in the church, to acknowledge such endowed individuals as acting for them in this leading capacity. This they can do without such teachers being thereby constituted into a distinct order or caste, as the clergy are usually regarded. Nor is an institute in this way created which shall operate as a release of the mass of believers from all responsi bility on the score of effort in building up, in the princi ples of the church, that particular society with which they may chance to be connected. If it is deemed desirable that the ordaining rite should be administered in such cases to represent just that kind of vice-agent function which we have described, so be it ; we know of nothing to render it improper, though at the same time we see nothing to make it impei-ative. But, if done, let it be understood as denoting a transmission or communi cation from the people to their substituted ministers, and not from one jure divino clergyman to another. Let it, moreover, ever be borne in mind, that Aaron, his sons, and the Levites, represent primarily principles, and per sons only so far as persons may be necessary to embody those principles. Wherever the principles exist iu the proper degree, there the persons are found, provided they are acknowledged in that character, as they will 24 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. scarcely fail to be, where a genuine affection of truth exists ; and as to ordination or inauguration, the illus trating influx is always to be viewed as preceding and not following it, and nothing is clearer from the writings of the New Church than that this influx, which is con fined to no one class, carries with it all competent authority to teach. We object, therefore, to the restricted application of the above Canon to the so-called clergy, from the fact, that evidence exists in abundance, going to show that the " teaching of doctrine from the "Word" is the duty of every member of the church, just in proportion as he understands it, and is prompted by the love of charitable use to declare it. But as in this position I shall undoubt edly appear to run counter to an express injunction of our enlightened author, it will be expedient to present that injunction distinctly in this connection. " Grood may be insinuated into another by every one in the country ; but not truth, except those who are teaching ministers (ministri docentes) ; if others insinuate truth, it gives birth to heresies, and the church is disturbed and rent asunder. Every one should first acquire truth to himself from the doctrine of the church, and afterward from the Word of the Lord, and this truth must be the object of his faith." —A. C. 6822. On this passage it may be remarked, that its genuine scope can only be determined by viewing it in its rela tions to the context. It occurs in a series of articles ap pended to several chapters of the exposition of Exodus, in which the author is treating at considerable length of the doctrine of Charity. In his definitions of neighbor he informs us that the term is not to be restricted to a single individual but has an ascending purport, implying successively an individual, a society, a man's country, the church, the Lord's kingdom, and the Lord Himself. On each of these heads he expatiates somewhat fully, showing the laws of charity in reference to each, and the grounds upon which they rest. The passage in question occurs in what is said of the church as a neighbor, but THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 25 in the use of the term " country," we recognize an allusion to what had been just before affirmed respecting the neighbor viewed in that capacity. Otherwise we see not clearly how to account for the peculiar phraseology em ployed : " Good may be insinuated into another by every one in t/ie country." " By every one in the church" would seem to have been the more natural ex pression, provided the sense commonly ascribed to the language be the true one. But taken in its relations, the idea we receive from it is, that while every citizen of a country is a minister or servant to the community in which he dwells, and bound to promote its interests, secular or sacred, yet all are not equally qualified for every department of service. In whatever concerns the inculcation of good, no restriction is enjoined. Every one, without exception, is at full liberty to do all in his power towards insinuating this divine principle into the minds of his fellow-men. But in regard to truth, or that system of religious doctrines which is usually understood by the term, the case is otherwise ; there, while there is a general duty of imparting religious truth in an informal way, and according to the measure of attainment, yet it is more expedient and more orderly that this function should be systematically discharged by those who are ministri, i. e., ministers or servants of a higher degree, to wit, ministri docentes or teaching ministers — a class of men not necessarily constituted into a distinct order, but men possessed of certain qualifications, enabling them to perform this use to better advantage than others, because from their longer acquaintance with the docti'ines, from their deeper study of them, and from their conjoining with their doctrines an exemplary life, their instructions would naturally have more weight. The distinction to which we allude is, perhaps, recognized in the following passage : " By the Lord's disciples are meant those who are instructed by the Lord in the goods and truths of doctrine ; but by apostles they who, after they are instructed, teach them," A. R. 79. We shall soon pro ceed to show that this is the true representative function 26 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. of apostles, and also of prophets. With those persons in a community who were less conversant with the truth in its various bearings, there would be more liabilityto crude conceptions and enunciations, by which heresies might be engendered, and " confusion and every evil work" ensue. Let, then, the formal teaching of truth devolve more especially upon those whom the Lord, by a longer training in his school, has qualified to take the lead in the instruction of their fellow-men, and who have thus been empowered to act as ministri docentes to their fellow-christians. The ability with which they are gifted to perform the office, and the recognition of this ability on the part of their brethren, is what constitutes the essence of the appointment. These " teaching minis ters," i. e. servants, having been peculiarly taught of God, are thereby qualified to teach their novitiate bre thren, and these latter are inhibited from exercising the function simply from their present inability to do it with advantage to the cause. The words, however, do not imply so much an imperative veto as a dehortation ap pealing to the modesty and good sense of the neophytes of the church not to " meddle with things too high for them." As they advance in spiritual knowledge and experience, they will grow in the teaching capacity, and thus be enabled in due time to take the place of their elders. Accordingly, it is said in the extract under con sideration, '-'¦Every one ought first to acquire truth to himself from the doctrine of the church, and afterwards from the Word of the Lord, and this truth must be the object of his faith." That is, he is first to acquire truth before he undertakes to teach — before he can justly lay claim to the character of a " teaching minister" — for all such are to officiate on the ground of their superior apti tude for discharging the duty, and not by virtue of any instituting or inaugurating rite. It is thus that we are forced to understand the drift of the paragraph cited, and we now proceed to adduce our reasons, in the form of a series of distinct quotations, for believing that any other mode of interpreting the pas- THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHH". 27 sage brings our author into the most pointed contradiction to himself. And here we add an explanatory remark. It will no doubt appear a problem why we refuse to receive the various passages from Swedenborg usuallj' cited in support of a priesthood in that sense which they seem to bear on their face, and in which they have always been received and acted upon in the New Church. To this we reply, that it is for the simple reason that it would make Swedenborg inconsistent with himself. To our mind nothing is clearer than that the general tenor of his writings is at variance with the literal import of the specific paragraphs in question. This apparent dis crepancy is never alluded to, nor would seem ever to be recognized by the opposite school, but it is exceedingly plain to us, and we feel bound to adopt such a construc tion of the author's language as will at least make him consistent with himself. That which we have indicated above is to our own minds satisfactory on this score ; if others dissent they no doubt feel competent to assign valid reasons therefor, and such reasons we shall always feel bound candidly to weigh. We have already dwelt at length upon the position that the priests and Levites of the Jewish dispensation represented principles and not persons. The Apostles of the New Testament have a like representative import. " By the twelve apostles are represented and signified all in the church who are in truths derived from good ; thus also, all traths de rived from good from which the church is ; and by each apostle in particular is represented and signified some specific principle. Thus, by Peter is represented and signified faith ; by James, charity ; and by John, the good of charity, or the good of love." — A. E. 8. We need not say how incongruous would be the insti tution of a trinal order of persons on the ground of this statement, and yet, why is there not as much warrant for it as for the appointment of such an order on the ground of the representative character of Aaron, the Priests, and the Levites under the old economy ? " By the apostles are signified those inho teach the truth.t of the church."— A. E. 100. 28 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGHSIP. " Apostles are so called because they are sent to teach, and to evan gelize concerning the Lord ; hence it appears what is meant by apostles in the Word, namely, not the twelve apostles who were sent by the Lord to teach concerning Him and His Kingdom, but all those who are in the truths of the church." — Id. " By the twelve disciples are represented all who are principled in goods and trutlis from tlie Lord." — A. C. 9942. " By apostles are not understood apostles, but all who teach the goods and trutlis ofthe church." — A. R. 79. " Here, then, we have the representative bearing of the twelve apostles, and not a syllable occurs to show that they were intended to shadow forth a distinct order of men apart from the general brotherhood of the church. It is palpable that they denote all those who, by being indoctrinated and principled in the goods and truths of the church, are made capable of imparting them to others, or, in other words, of becoming " teaching min isters." The representative significance of prophets is equiva lent to that of apostles, to wit, that of teachers of truth ; and Swedenborg remarks in regard to priests that their office was that of " explaining the law divine, and teach ing, on which occasion they were at the same time pro phets." The work, therefore, of imparting doctrinal truth clothes one spiritually with the prophetic character. " To prophecy signifies to teach in the Word, because by a prophet, in the supreme sense, is understood the Lord as to the Word. Hence by prophesyhig is signified to teach the Word and doctrine from the Word."— A. E. 624. " So in Amos, iii. 7, 8 : ' Surely the Lord Jehovah will not do a word without revealing his secret unto his servants the prophets. The lion hath roared, who will not fear ? The Lord Jehovah hath spoken, who can but prophecy ?' Here by the Lord Jehovah not doing a word without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets, is signified, that the Lord opens the interior things of the word and of doctrine to those who are in truths from good ; by revealing his secret are signified the illustration and opening of the interior things of the Word ; by his servants the prophets, are signified those who are in the trutlis of doc trine, and who receive." — A- E. 601. THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 29 " By priests are understood those who teach life and lead to good, and by prophets those whq^teach truths by which they are to be led — in a word, prophets are to teach, and priests to lead." — A. E. 624. " By the prophets mentioned here (Ezek. xiii. 2, 3, 8) and in other parts of the Word, are understood in the spiritual sense all who are led by the Lord, for with them the Lord flows in and reveals to them the arcana of the Word, whether they teach them or not, wherefore such are signified by prophets in the spiritual sense.'' — A. E. 624. Such, then, is the spiritual import of apostles and pro phets in the writings of the New Church ; and as that church is a spiritual church, it is doubtless a S23iritual office which is designated by these terms. The function indicated is, indeed, to be performed -more especiaUy by a class of men peculiarly adapted, from interior endowments and elevated states, to the work, but still not so exclusively by them as absolutely to preclude all others, and thus to lay a claim to a monopoly of the use. This, we should suppose, could hardly be maintained in their behalf with such passages as the following before our eyes — passages that evidently apply to every one who professes to be governed by the laws of the Lord's kingdom. Their drift, it will be seen, is to inculcate the communication of truth and good as an exercise of spiritual charity. In the spiritual sense feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, and clothing the naked, is but another mode of conveying the idea of this very duty. " By Jesus saying three times to Peter, ' Lovest thou me?' and Peter saying three times, ' I love thee,' and Jesus then saying, ' Feed my lambs,' and ' Feed my sheep,' is signified, that theu who are in faith derived from love ought to instruct those who are in the good of love to the Lord, and in the good of charity towards their neighbor ; for they who are in faith derived from love are also in truths, and they who are thence in truths, instruct concerning good and lead to good."— ji. E. 9. " By giving a cup of cold water to the little ones ia signified to teach truth from spiritual innocence, and also to instruct the innocent in truths."—^. E. 624. " ' If thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul • then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the 4 30 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. noon day,' Is. Iviii. 10. In these words is described the exercise of charity towards the neighbor, in this cas% towards those who are in ignorance and at the same time desirous of knowing truths, and grieved on account of the falsities which occupy the mind ; and that with those who are in that charity, falsities shall be shaken off, and truths give light and shine. Charity towards those who are in ignorance, and who at the same time are desirous of knowing truths, is under stood by ' if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry,' the hungry denoting those who desire, and soul denoting the intelligence of truth instructing. That it is thus to instruct those who are grieved on ac count of the falsities which occupy the mind, is signified by ' and satisfy the afflicted soul ;' that with those who are in such charity, ignorance shall be dissipated, and truths shine, and give light, is under stood by, ' then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noon day.' Obscurity signifies the ignorance of the spiritual mind, and darkness the ignorance of the natural mind ; light signifies truth in the light, in like manner noon day. In such illumination are they who, from charity, or spiritual affection, instruct those who a,re in falsities from ignorance, for that charity is the receptacle of the influx of light or truth from the Lord. Again : ' Is not this the fast which I have chosen ? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke ? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that ye bring the poor that are cast out to thy house ? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him ; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh,' Iviii. 6, 7. Similar things are understood by these words : for, by dealing bread to the hungry, is signified that from charity they should communicate to and instruct those who are in ignorance, and who at the same time are desirous of knowing truths. To bring the poor that are cast out into the house, signifies to amend and restore those who are in falsities, and thence in grief." — A- E. 386. i ../' ' I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat ; I was thirsty, aud ye gave me no drink ; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in.' Here by hungering and thirsting are signified to be in ignorance and in spiritual want, and by giving to eat and drink, are signified to instruct and to enlighten from spiritual affection or charity ; wherefore it is also said, ' I was a stranger, and ye took me in,' for by stranger is signified those who are out of the church, and desire to be instructed and receive the doctrines thereof, and live according to them." — A. E. 386. " In the Word where mention is made of borrowing and lending, it signifies to be instructed and to instruct, from the affection of charity ; as in Matt. v. 42, ' Give to every one that asketh of thee, and from him that is desirous to borrow of thee, turn not thou away.' By asking and desiring to borrow, and by giving and receiving what is borrowed, is meant the communication of celestial goods, which are the knowledges of good and truth."— ^. C. 9174. THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 31 " Lending denotes to communicate the goods of heaven from the affec tion of charity, thus to instruct those who being in ignorance of truth, and yet in the desire of learning, cmght to be instructed." — A. C. 9209. Who can gainsay the inference which we draw from this, that the duty of teaching, and that, too, of teaching " doctrines from the Word," is actually incumbent upon every one who is amenable to the Lord's laws of charity ? How is it possible to restrict this duty to a clerical caste, or to suppose that Swedenborg would so stultify himself as absolutely to forbid the insinuation or inculcation of truth to all save a consecrated class in the church ? At the same time, we perceive nothing in this view inconsistent with a more special office of instruction to be exercised by those who are best qualified for it. This office, if we mistake not, was particularly represented by the Levites, who had no inheritance assigned them among the tribes, but who were scattered, as a kind of leaven of charitable use, throughout the mass of the people. The general significance of that tribe is spiritual love or charity going forth in good works towards the neighbor. " The reason why the tribe of Levi signifies good works is, because spiritual love or charity consists in performing goods, which are good works ; essential charity, viewed in itself, is the affection of truth and good, and where that affection is, there is a life according to truths and goods, for affection without a life according to the truths and goods, with which it is affected has no existence. Spiritual affection has for its end the Lord, heaven, and life eternal, which it regards in the truths and goods ; thus it loves truths and goods spiritually, and when this affection has place with man, he then loves to think those things, and to will them, consequently to live according to them. To live according to goods and truths is understood in the Word by doing, and the life itself, by the deeds and works which are so often mentioned in the Word : these therefore are what were represented and signified by Levi and his tribe in the church with the Jews. Inasmuch as this affection is the very essential principle of the church, therefore the tribe of Levi was made the priesthood ; and therefore the staff of Levi in the tent of the assembly blossomed with almonds ; and for the same reason, to that tribe was given an inheritance, not in the same manner as to the other tribes, but amongst each of them. The reason why the priesthood was given to the tribe of Levi was, because it repre sented, and thence signified, love and charity. Love and charity con stitute the affection of spiritual good and truth ; for affection being 32 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. the continuous principle of love, is predicated of love in its continuity. The same is also signified in the Word by the priesthood and its min istry, this affection being the essential principle of the church, since where it is, there is the church, and where it is not, the church is not ; for the affection of good and truth is the very spiritual life of man, for when man is affected with good and truth, he is then in good and truth as to life, his thought itself being nothing but affection in a varied form, forasmuch as whatever a man thinks he derives from his affection, to think without affection being impossible. Hence then it may appear why the tribe of Levi was appointed to the priesthood." — A. E. 444. The blossoming of the almonds of Aaron's rod is fur ther explained in what follows : " By almonds are signified the goods of charity, for by these all things relating to the church flourish in man, because when he possesses these, he.possesses intelligence and faith, inasmuch as he is then in the affection of understanding what he knows from the Word, and in the will of acting according to it." — A. E. 4A4:. So also the fact of their not receiving separate inheri tance among the other tribes has its significance unfolded in the same connexion. " Inasmuch as in all things relating to the church there must be the good of charity, in order to the church being in them ; and inasmuch as the affection itself of good and truth, which is charity, gives the faculty of intelligence, and instructs all, therefore the tribe of Levi was not only appointed to the priesthood, but the inheritance granted to that tribe was amongst all the other tribes." — A. E. 444. Comparing the above last cited paragraph with that which follows, we seem to ourselves to perceive a distinct intimation that the priesthood was not to constitute a separate order, but was to be an operative element of charity and good works pervading the entire body of the church. " Inasmuch as the Lord as to all the work of salvation was repre sented by the high priest, and the work of salvation by his office, which is called the priesthood, therefore to Aaron and his sons was not given inheritance and portion among the people, for it is said that Jehovah God was to them an inheritance and a portion ; for the people repre sented heaven and the church, but Aaron with his sons and with the Levites represented the good of love and of faith, which makes heaven THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 33 and the church, thus the Lord from whom that good is derived ; there fore the land was ceded to the people for an inheritance, but not to the priests,/or the Lord is in them, but not amongst them as one and distinct." —A- C, 9809. What can we gather from this but that the Levitical principle in the church, to wit, the good of love and the fruits of charity, is the most direct and pregnant repre sentative of the Lord himself, and that this, as the very life of the church, is not to assume a distinct and isolated form, but is to be diffused as a vital element throughout the entire community of the church, as were the Levites in Israel ? As before remarked, we do not by this convey the idea that this Levitical principle exists as an abstrac tion, unimpersonated, unembodied in the church. Not at all ; we recognize it in the forms of living members of the church, who have so far progressed in the regene rate life, who have become so endowed with the gifts of knowledge and charity, that they are rendered capable of performing those spiritual uses to their brethren which were so strikingly shadowed forth by the functions of the sacred tribe in the literal Israel. What but this is the drift of the ensuing extracts : " Inasmuch, as already observed, as every man learns science, intel ligence, and wisdom, according to the affection of good and truth which he possesses, therefore it is also said in Moses, ' And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near ; for them Jehovah thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah, and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried,' Deut. xxi. 5. By these words in the spiritual sense, is signified, that the affection of good and truth, which is charity, ministers to the Lord, and teaches those things which pertain to the church and to worship, and dis tinguishes falsities from truths, and evils from goods ; for by the sons of Levi, in the spiritual sense, is signified the affection of good and truth, which is charity. From these observations it may appear, that the tribe of Levi was chosen for the priesthood, and had an inheritance among all the tribes, not because that tribe was better than the other tribes, but because it represented charity in act, and good works, which are the effects of all good and truth in man." — A. E. 444. " Whereas the sons of Levi signify the goods and truths of the church, and in general, the spiritual affection of truth and good, there- 4* 34 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. fore it is said concerning them, ' they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant ; they shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law ;' by which is signified that they who are in the spiritual affection of truth act according to the Word, and teach the goods and truths of the church, for the spiritual affection itself of truth is what does and teaches, inasmuch as the Lord flows into that affection, effecting good in man, and teaching him truth : the Word in this passage signifying the divine truth, and to observe it obviously signifying to act according to it, or to do what it commands. These things are said concerning Levi, because divine truth, which is the Word, can exist only with those who are in the spiritual affection of truth, which affection con sists in loving the truth itself, and esteeming it above every good of the world, because thereby man has life eternal, which cannot be implanted in him by any other means than by truths, consequently by the Word, for by the Word the Lord teaches truths." — A. E. 444. " From these observations it may be seen what is signified in the representative sense by Levi and his tribe, namely, the good of charity, which is the good of life, likewise the spiritual affection of good and truth, and, in the supreme sense, the Lord as to spiritual love." — A. E. 444. From the scope of these passages we know not for our selves how to resist the conclusion, that the Levitical principle in the church does ultimate itself in that course of kindly pastoral care, instruction, and spiritual leading, which is the native impulse of the affection above de scribed. To confine this to any exclusive order of men would be to prescribe an ex officio charity, which is as gross an anomaly as can be conceived. There is no point in regard to which we are more anxious to have our views distinctly apprehended than that which respects the existence oi" a priesthood in the church. It is not the fact of a priesthood, but the kind, which is a matter of debate with us. We fully admit the existence of the institution, but we deny that it con sists of a distinct order of men, standing out in relief from the body of the church, exclusively devoted to sacerdotal functions, and receiving temporal support therefrom as did the Jewish priests from the altar which they served. It is this particular feature of the prevail ing theory of priesthood to which we object. We recog nize no such distinction as now every where obtains be- THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 35 tween clergy and laity. We would retain every thing that is essential in the order, and reject every thing that is factitious. What we regard as such in both respects can hardly fail to appear from the tenor of what we have already said. When we deny the existence of an exter nal priesthood in the church, we do not of course design to be understood as implying that the priesthood is not to be exercised by men in the flesh, and who are of couise so far external, but we have constant reference to the above-mentioned distinction. Our meaning is, that we do not admit the existence of a priestly order as vis ibly distinct from the laical. The true priesthood, we contend, is to be sought for in the body of the laity, and not apart from it, and that it is to be identified by the possession of certain internal states and endowments re presented by the priestly function under the Jewish dis pensation. As we understand this external representa tive institute to be abolished under the dispensation of the New Jerusalem, we find no authority for any other priesthood than that to which we now allude, and this we feel at liberty to denominate spiritual, in contradistinc tion from the external and visible above described. We say this to cut off unequivocally from our opponents all possible occasion for charging us with a total and un qualified denial of a priesthood of any kind whatever in the New Church. We are well aware, however, that the distinction now made and insisted on will be resolutely ignored by some " of the contrary part," but it is never theless perfectly sound in itself, and clearly and intelli gibly stated. At the same time, we cannot be ignorant that this very position will be most strenuously oppugned. The earnest advocates for the opposite view admit no such construc tion of Swedenborg's language respecting the abrogation of representatives, as shall involve the doing away of the sacerdotal order in the church. A representative priest hood, it is contended, must always of necessity exist in the church, and that priesthood cannot really be a priest hood unless composed of men formed into a distinct and 36 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. privileged caste. This point has been elaborated at great length, and with signal ability, by the Rev. Mr. De Charms, in the " Newchurchman — Extra" (p. 416 — 473), but still with results to our minds wholly inconclusive. We cannot pursue the argument in detail, but its effect is, if we understand it, to vacate entirely the force of the following and many similar passages from our enlight ened author. " The Lord ' abolished the representatives of the Jewish nation, be cause the greatest part had respect to himself — for the image must vanish when the effigy itself appears. He established, therefore a new church, which should not be led, as the former was, by representatives to things internal, but which should know them without representa tives.' "—A- C- 4904. " When the Lord came into the world, then the externals which re presented were abolished, because it was the Lord Himself whom the representatives of the church shadowed forth and signified, and where as they were external things, and, as it were, veilings or coverings, within which was the Lord, therefore when He came, these coverings were taken away, and He Himself appeared manifest with heaven and with the church, in which He is the all in all." — A. E. 700. " By the ark is signified the representative of the church in general, in like manner as by the daily or continual [sacrifice] in Daniel, which was to cease at the Lord's coming into the world : in this sense it is mentioned in Jeremiah : ' I will give you pastors according to my heart, and they shall feed you with knowledge and intelligence ; and it shall come to pass when ye shall be multiplied, and bear fruit in the land, in those days they shall no more say, the ark of the covenant of Jehovah, neither shall it come up upon the heart, nor shall they make mention thereof, neither shall they desire it, neither shall it be repaired anymore,' iii. 15, 16. These things are said concerning the advent of the Lord, and concerning the abolition of the representative rites of the Jewish church which should then take place : that the interior things of the church should be manifested, which were veiled over by the representative external rites, and that they should then become in terior or spiritual men, is signified by pastors being given according to the heart of the Lord, who shall feed them with knowledge and intel ligence ; by pastors are understood those who teach good and lead thereto by truths : the multiplication of truth and fructification of good, is signified by, then it shall come to pass, when ye shall be mul tiplied and bear fruit in the land in those days : that then conjunction with the Lord will be by the interior things of the Word and not by things exterior, which only signified and represented things interior, is THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 37 signified by, they shall no more say, the ark of the covenant of Jeho vah, the ark of the covenant of Jehovah there denoting the externals of worship, which were then to be abolished, the same as by the daily or continual [sacrifice] which was to cease, as mentioned in Daniel, chap. viii. 13 ; chap. xi. 31 ; chap. xii. 11 : that there was to be no longer external worship, but internal, is signified by, it shall not come into the heart, neither shall they make mention thereof, neither shall they desire it, neither shall it be repaired any more." — A. E. 700. " After the coming of the Lord, however, when external rites were abolished, and representatives consequently ceased, these were no longer changed in heaven into corresponding representatives ; for as man be comes internal, and is instructed in iiiternal things, then externals are as nothing to him, for he then knows what is sacred, as charity, and the faith grounded therein. From these internal principles therefore his externals are now regarded, for the purpose of ascertaining how much of charity and of faith towards the Lord is in them. Wherefore, since the Lord's advent, man is no longer considered in heaven in refer ence to externals, but to internals ; and if any one be regarded as to his external, it is solely because he is in simplicity, and in this state has innocence and charity, which are introduced by the Lord into externals, or into his external worship, without his consciousness."' — A. C. 1003. All this would seem to be sufficiently explicit, and its scope is so palpably adverse to the prevalent idea of a re presentative priesthood continued under the New Dis pensation, that it is no wonder that all the logical forces of the upholders of the priesthood are concentrated to the task of explaining away its obvious import. The on ward march of the hierarchical argument is terribly im peded by this huge rock lying directly in the way, and unless it can be blasted, or tunneled, or triturated, or dis solved by some kind of dialectic acid, the whole host must come to a dead stand. We must say, in justice to Mr. D., that Hannibal never labored more industriously in applying his solvent to the granite of the Alps, to effect a passage for his troops, than does our esteemed brother to overcome the rocky resistance of the above class of paragraphs. Indeed, he shows a marvellous tact in eliciting from them a meaning diametrically opposite to that which they bear in the sense of the letter, and making them confirm the very tenet which they were in tended to confute. " Can any thing be clearer than this 38 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. in showing that the external representative is not wholly done away ?" * _ Yet we would by no means insinuate a disparaging idea of the course of Mr. D.'s reasoning on this score. It involves, in our opinion, many suggestions of undeni able truth, and of great weight, and such as evince a most profound acquaintance with the doctrines and phil osophy of the New Church. But from his main conclu sions we are obliged to dissent, because they strike us as directly at variance with the tenor of the above quota tions. He contends, among other things, that the Jewish representatives were not so much done away as fulfilled, under the Christian dispensation — that consequently, " every representative form which is contained in the letter of the Word, and which may represent the inter nals of the Christian church, may be used in external Christian worship, provided the Christian, at the time of its use, knows, thinks of, and regards in it, its spiritual meaning" — that the serpent of the old ceremonies is to be made a staff of and lifted up in the holy acts of divine worship — that " among the representatives thus lifted up will undoubtedly be priestly offices, priestly functionaries, and priestly garments" — that as in all true worship "there must be an external as well as an internal, there fore external representative rites are not to be wholly done away in the Christian church, so that its worship is to be internal alone ; but every external rite may be adopted from the letter of the Word, and even from the Jewish ritual, so far as that is representative of, and cor- respondential to, divine things in the Word — provided they are congruent with the Christian, as an internal, church," — that consequently, " the Christian may have Scriptural forms pictured and sculptured to his eyes — aromatic odors, with the forms of flowers that produce them in nature, or the incense of their burning extracts as products of art, for his nostrils — sweet sounds of har monious choral music for his ears, and sacred and corres- pondential appliances to every sense" — that all these re presentatives are legitimated under the present dispensa- THE- PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 39 tion " in order to give to the church the vastly increased powers of the ultimate principle of the mind, in develop ing, forming, perfecting, and securing all her internal principles" — that there is an important distinction be tween t)'U6, pure, real, or genuine, and mere or external representatives, and that " when the Lord abrogated the Jewish ritual, he merely abolished idolatrous representa tives, thus removed the Judaic and Hebraic superaddi- tions to genuine or internal representatives, or cracked the shell so as to give these true representatives as the kernel to the Christian church ; and as priestly offices, and whatever had relation to those functions, were among the true representatives of the Ancient Church, therefore these were not abolished in the Christian church by the abrogation of the Jewish ritual." These ideas are greatly and very ingeniously expanded in the work to which we refer, and being enunciated in a powerfully persuasive strain, and mingled with a goodly measure of genuine truth, one is led to distrust himself in calling them in question, while at the same time he feels assured that if the plain declarations of Swedenborg are to be received as true, there must be a lurking fallacy pervading the argument, and nullifying its force. This fallacy, if we mistake not, lies in Mr. D.'s views of the external of a church as compared with its interned. Thus, for instance, he cites Swedenborg as affirming that " priestly offices, and whatever had relation to their func tions," are among the true, and therefore essential, exter nals of a church. This we are compelled to deny, and to justify this denial we quote the context at length in which the passage occurs. " The first Ancient Church, which was spread far and wide over the face of the globe, particularly in Asia, in process of time, as is usual with all churches, in all places, grew degenerate, and was adulterated by innovations, both as to its external and its internal worship. This was the case in various countries, and this was owing especially to the circumstance, that all the significatives and representatives which the Ancient Church received by oral tradition from the Most Ancient Church, all which had respect to the Lord and his kingdom, were turned into idolatrous rites, and with some nations into magical cere- 40 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. monies. To prevent the destruction which hence threatened the whole church, it was permitted by the Lord that a significative and repre sentative worship should be again restored in a particular country. This was effected by Heber ; and this worship consisted principally in external things. The external things employed were high places, groves, statues, a.nointings, besides the establishment of priestly offices, and qf whatever had relation to their functions ; together with various other things which are included in the name of statutes or ordinances. The internals of their worship were doctrinals derived from the Ante diluvians.—^. C. 1241. ¦Now, we cannot, for ourselves, perceive in this specifi cation of externals that any one branch of them is of more intrinsic necessity than another ; that the priestly offices are any more genuine representatives than the high places, groves, statues, &c., with which they are classed. If one could be abolished, we see no reason why the other could not be, and if we understand our author, they were equally proscribed by the genius of the New Dispensation. But from this it does not follow that the law of correspondences is touched, or that the whole ob jective universe ceases to be a representative theatre for the display of internal and spiritual truths, and so far it is certain that representatives have not been abolished.* Great stress, we know, is laid upon the statement of our author that both kings and priests, of whatsoever quality they are, represent the Lord by virtue of the royal and priestly principles appertaining to them, which of course we admit ; but we are at a loss to discover why this re presentative character does not belong as well to the kind of priests for which we contend, as to that which consti- * We are happy to find ourselves here in accordance with a writer in tho " N. J. Magazine" (May, 1855) who in an able review of Rev. Mr. Benade's Resignation Sermon, thus remarks : — " The point in question is not whether ministers (priests) and other things are representative, — for no one who has read the doctrines of the Church can deny this, — but the question is, whether there is any thing in the doctrines that requires us to establish ministers (priests), altars, and other things of worship, besides Baptism and the Holy Supper, ia their representative character, as indispensable parts of our worship. In the general sense, the Lord did not abolish representatives at his coming. Things represent now just as much as they ever did, though the representative ia not seen. He only abrogated the requirement to use any representatives except Baptism and the Holy Supper." THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSmP. 41 tutes Mr. D.'s ideal. Cannot the spiritual represent the divine ? A priest of the New Church is a man on the earth, and so far is a visible and external priest ; but his priesthood is to be sought in his internal character and qualifications. Is he, for this reason, incapable of repre senting the Lord ? So also as to his externals. It is a bruited apothegm that the church and- the man of the church must have an external as well as an internal. Un doubtedly. But what then ? Because a man is a spirit ual man has he no external ? Because the true priest hood of the church is composed of spiritual men possessed of certain endowments, and undistinguished frona the so- called laity, has that priesthood no external ? Does it not stand upon the ultimate plane ? Is it not embosomed in the natural world ? Have not such men bodies? Do they not meet for worship in earthly temples ? Do they not engage corporeally in the services of prayer, praise, reading, discoursing, and the like, and are not these ex ternal things in respect to the internal principles by which they are prompted ? Did our limits permit, it would, we think, be easy to show that for the same reason that Mr. D. and those of his school find it impossible to form an idea of any other priest than one who is set apart and inducted into office by human agency, it is impossible for them also to con ceive of any other representative external of such a priest hood than the paraphernalia of inaugurations, vestments, pulpits, litanies, &c., as to all which we see nothing in them, but the shadows of things which we are now per mitted to enjoy richly in the substance. This view of the subject, we are well aware, will be regarded as crude and superficial, and it will be maintained that if we have not just such an idea of a priest of the New Church as that which is sketched out for us, we have no idea of a priest at all- If so, we submit. The imputation will not trouble us. We know that Swedenborg meant what he said when he said that the Lord at his coming into the world " abrogated the representatives, which were all external, and instituted a church of which all things should be internal." 5 42 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. We have not, in this connection, adverted to the argu ment founded upon the chapter entitled " Ecclesiastical and Civil Government," in the " Heavenly Doctrines," although well aware that that chapter is regarded per haps by the mass of New Churchmen as a divinely ap pointed platform for the government, sacred and secular, of the New Jerusalem. We have waived a reference to this portion of Swedenborg's writings because we do not regard it in the light in which it is viewed by the advo cates of the priesthood as a separate caste. They look upon it as laying down a distinct programme for the ecclesiastical polity of the New Church, just as they regard all the other chapters of the work as a divine code of doctrine and an authoritative rule of life to the mem bers of the Church. This they infer from certain pas sages in which the author says, " This doctrine is from heaven, inasmuch as it is from the spiritual sense of the Word, and the spiritual sense of the Word is the same with the doctrine which is in heaven." Again, " I pro ceed to the doctrine itself, which is for the New Church, and which is called Heavenly Doctrine, because it was revealed to me out of heaven ; for to deliver this doctrine is the design of this work." That this work is, in its general scope, designed as an exponent of the peculiar doctrines of the New Church, we, of course, cannot doubt and still belong to that church ; but that this par ticular chapter is specifically intended as a directory to the New Church in the matter of its civil or ecclesiastical government we are by no means prepared to admit, and that for the following reasons : — 1. It is to our mind disproved by what our illumined author himself says in regard to the general character of the work: — " As to what concerns the following doctrine, this also is from heaven, inasmuch as it is from the spi ritual sense of the Word, and the spiritual sense of the Word is the same with that which is in heaven." How is this chapter related to the spiritual sense of the Word ? To all the other chapters of the work are appended copious extracts from the Arcana confirming and THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 43 illustrating its various positions, but to this closing chapter there is not a single reference annexed. More over, the main subject matter of the chapter is Kings and Priests, of which the internal sense is Truth and Good. Why are not the latter the subject treated of, if the doctrine involved is the doctrine of the spiritual sense ? How can the New Church, if it be a truly spirit ual church, founded upon the spiritual sense ofthe Word, know any other than a spiritual priesthood and a spirit ual kingship ? 2. The opening sentence of the chapter strikes us as disclosing its genuine drift : — " There are two classes of affairs amongst men which ought to be conducted accord ing to the laws of order." There is no specific mention made of the New Church, but the affairs spoken of are affairs amongst men widely and generally taken, imply ing, if we mistake not, that the author here passes from the consideration of the church to the wider field of the world at large. 3. The state of things described as making governors necessary is one entirely different from what we are taught to regard as predicable of the New Jerusalem. " It is impossible that order can be maintained in the world ¦without governors, whose duty should be vigilantly to observe the proceedings of those who act according to order, and of those who act contrary to order, that they may reward the former, and punish the latter. Unless this were done, the human race would inevitably perish. The desire of ruling others, and of possessing their pro perty, being hereditary in every individual, and being the source whence all enmity, envying, hatred, revenge, deceit, cruelty, and numerous other evils proceed ; unless men, in the exercise of their prevailing inclinations, were, on the one hand, restrained by the fear of the laws, and the dread of punishment involving the loss of honor, of property, and of life, as a necessary consequence of a course of evil ; and, on the other hand, encouraged by the hope of honor and of gain, as the reward of well doing, there would speedily be an end of the human 44 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. race." Now, we would ask if any candid and intelli gent man, with Swedenborg's explication of the last two chapters of the Apocalypse in his hand, can possibly suppose this description to be applicable to the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem is a new church, in closest conjunction with heaven, and the men of that church are heavenly men, who are governed by other motives than the " fear of the laws, and the dread of punishment." Let the closing chapters of Isaiah be consulted, in which it is said of the New Jerusalem, that " henceforth there shall no more come into thee the un- circumcised and the unclean ;" " thy people shall be all righteous ;" and the declaration of John in the Apoca lypse, that " there shall not enter into the city anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie," and then let any one pronounce whether such necessities for restraining laws and rulers can exist in that celestial economy. 4. The duty prescribed for priests is so worded in this chapter as unequivocally to imply that " divided" or de nominational churches are contemplated by the language, which is wholly at variance with the idea of the unitary character of the church of the New Jerusalem. " With respect to priests, their duty is to teach men the way to heaven, and likewise to lead them therein. They are to teach them according to the doctrine of their church {sum ecclesid), which is derived from the Word of God ; and to lead them to live according to "that doctrine." We have here given the reading according to the original. The reader who consults almost any edition extant will find the rendering to be " the church," instead of " their church," but the error is palpable, though we are willing, in the lack of any knowledge to the contrary, to believe that it has crept into the translations without any express design of falsification. But it will be seen to change entirely the whole scope of the paragraph. What is the fair interpretation ? Does it not imply that the priests or ministers of the several churches in Christendom, as, for instance, the Lutheran, the Calvinistic, the Episcopal, THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHH'. 45 the Presbyterian, the Baptist, the Methodist, &c., are to teach according to the tenets which these bodies respec tively hold as being, in their view, derived from the Word of God ? Is it replied that this is virtually authorizing men to teach falsity instead of truth, and ex horting them to lead in a way which conducts to hell ? We ask in reply whether it be not a law of conscience, or, in other words, a matter of Christian honesty and integrity, for every so-called priest to be faithful to his convictions, and to teach what he and the church to which he belongs sincerely believe to be the doctrines of truth derived from the Word ? Is it not distinctly a principle of the New Church that every man is bound to be faithful to the light he has, though that light may not be the light of genuine truth ? And is it wrong to define the duties of men as related to their present states, though those' states should be very defective in many respects ? If so, what shall be said of Swedenborg's Scortatory doctrine, in which he undeniably adapts his suggestions to the states of the natural man who is not yet prepared to act from higher promptings ? The phraseology " their church," is not uncommon in our author's writings, and we may safely appeal to general usage as a key to his meaning in the passage before us. Thus, " those who are of the external church, are clearly in its externals, but obscurely in its internals, whereas those who are of the internal church are clearly in internals, and obscurely in externals ; but those who are in externals, and not at the same time in internals, are not of the church ; all those are in both who are in the good of life, according to the doctrines of their church {eoclesice sum) ; but those are in externals without internals, who are in worship, and not at the same time in the good of life according to the doctrines of the church."— J.. O. 8762. " Those who are in the affection of truth from evil, that is, who desire to know truth merely for the sake of honor, gain, reputation, and the like, do not see truths, but only such things as confirm the doctrines of their church {ecclesicB sum), whether they be true or false." — A. C. 8780. 5* 46 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. What, then, is the genuine character and scope of the famous chapter on Ecclesiastical and Civil Government in the Heavenly Doctrines ? We answer, that, as we understand it, it is not to lay down an authoritative draught or model of government, civil or sacred, in the New Church, but simply to show the New Churchman in what light he is to view tlie existing polities of church and state in the world. Such a man is to view every thing from his own peculiar stand-point. It is a part of the grand economy of the Divine Providence to maintain order in the world, as far as is consistent with human freedom, and to this end he overrules the different existing institutions of church and state, while at the same time there may be elements involved in each which a truly divine system of order would effectually repudiate. Such a system is doubtless that of the New Jerusalem ; but this is a system of slow development, and, in the mean time, while it is gradually maturing to its acme, it is proper and salutary to the best interests of humanity that no violence should be done to men's convictions in regard to those things which they have been taught to consider sacred ; and it is accordingly the object of our author in this chapter to unfold the principles by which men ought to be governed in upholding religion and civil government in the world, which are the grand pillars whereon the welfare of society rests. The chapter under consideration is, if we mistake not, a kind of general conspectus afforded to the man of the New Church of this department of the Divine Providence. He is in structed how to regard the whole complicated structure, and is shown by what means, or by the exercise of what principles, the benign results of these institutions are secured. If this be done preceptively, and the several duties of the spiritual and civil functionaries are clearly defined, it does not affect the general object of the enun ciation, which, we repeat, is not in our estimation to lay down a platform of polity for the New Church, but to give a New Church view of polities already existing and long established in the world. THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 47 The fact that the priesthood exists in heaven, and that the worship there is conducted very much as on earth {H. <& H. 215) is deemed by many as absolutely conclusive in favor of the popular view and the existing order of things. We have, of course, the most unbounded respect for the utterances and informations fiowing from the en lightened herald of the New Church, and have only to be assured that in matters pertaining to the church his genuine and true-meant teachings go counter to our views to renounce them forthwith. But on this head we lack conviction. We are not by any means clear that the apparent measures the real contrariety existing between his statements and ours. Certain it is, that the preach ing and the priestly function are not identified in heaven. " All the preachers are from the Lord's spiritual king dom, and none from the celestial kingdom." " All preachers are constituted by the Lord, and thence in the gift of preaching ; it is not lawful for any ex cept them to teach in the temples. They are called preachers but not priests ; the reason that they are not called priests is, because the priesthood of heaven is the celestial kingdom."—.^. <& IL 225, 226. The priest hood, therefore, pertains to all those who are in the good of love, which is the main character of the angels of the celestial kingdom. But these are not preachers. The preachers are from the si^iritual kingdom, and they are " constituted" by the Lord, i. e., as we understand it, they are the subjects of a special influx endowing them, for the occasion, with requisite qualifications, on the score of thought and affection, for the discharge of the function. It does not appear that the Lord " constitutes" them into a distinct order sustaining a fixed and perma nent office. We infer rather that a strong divine afflatus comes upon certain spirits when convened for worship, under the influence of which they are enabled to speak to ediflcation to the assembled groups, while on the en suing Sabbath it may be that some other one or more may be moved to the exercise of similar gifts. In a word, we take it that as far as any earthly analogy may 48 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. be cited, the mode of worship among the Quakers comes the nearest to the heavenly model. But even granting that the worship in heaven, as seen and described by Swedenborg, bore a very marked analogy to the prevailing modes of worship on earth, and suppose a similar distinction between clergy and laity, still we can account to the fact to our own minds without enforcing any change of views in regard to the funda mental question. The condition of things in the heaven which our author describes would naturally be governed in a greater or less degree, and for a longer or shorter time, by the internals of those who composed it, and when we consider that for ages the men of the church on earth had been accustomed to the conduct of religious affairs by the agency of a priesthood or a clergy, we can see what a violence would be done to the fixed forms of their spiritual life, had they been at once ushered into the midst of an economy entirely diverse from that which had been consecrated in their earthly memory. The heaven of recent souls in the other life will be, of course, in the first instance, a reflex of the church states in which they had mainly lived in.the present life. But we know of nothing that requires us to believe that the type of heavenly things set forth by Swedenborg will be utterly and eternally unchangeable. The genius of the New Jerusalem, we imagine, will be of gradual develop ment, both on earth and in heaven, and the only question is, whether the views above expressed do indeed rightly represent that genius. If so, we do not perceive that our conclusions are invalidated by anything affirmed of the state of the heavens when Swedenborg wrote. The ultimate effects of the Last Judgment, our author tells us {T. C. B. 123), had not been accomplished at that time, but were then going on, and would continue to go on. The reconstruction of the church in the way sug gested in this essay may be one of them. At any rate, if our positions are sound, the order of things in the heavens will eventually conform to them. We have thus exhibited, in strong relief, all the more THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 49 important passages usually cited as affording a warrant for the institution of a priesthood or clergy, comprising an order of men distinct from the so-called laity. To our own mind the proof, whether from the Word or the writings of the New Church, is utterly wanting of the intended existence of any such class of men in the Christian Church, and we do not therefore hesitate to consider the whole sacerdotal order, as at present estab lished, both in the Old Church and the New, as a stu pendous falsity, replete with tendencies of the most pernicious character to the interests of the Lord's king dom. We are constrained by what we consider' the strictest logical necessity, to deny the validity of the claims set up in behalf of a separate clerical caste, while, at the same time, we leave intact a leading or teaching function in the church, and one, too, that is to be exer cised by the men of the church. There is a true ministry — not clergy — in the Lord's church on the earth, consist ing of those who, in accordance with the representative character of the ancient Levites, are possessed of the endowments of spiritual love, enlightened intelligence, and active charity, which shall enable them to exercise a kindly pastoral office towards the lambs of the flock that naturally turn to their feeding hand. Every other form of priesthood we are forced to regard not only as an anti-christian usurpation, but as having the effect of an organic hypertrophy in the Lord's mystical body. By attracting to itself an over-measure of vital influx, it will rob the other portions of the system of their due share of spiritual innervation, and a paralysis of the members will be very certain to ensue. How much of enlightened discernment, indeed, js even now requisite in order to perceive that the broad line of distinction held to exist between clergy and laity, acts disastrously upon the interior life of the church by discharging the great mass of its members from that degree of responsibility which properly pertains to every one without exception? What is more evident than that the fact of having an individual salaried and set apart to preside over the spirit- 60 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. ual interests of a society, operates as a release to the^bulk of the members from any duty but that of punctually pay ing their subscription and sitting devoutly in their seats from Sabbath to Sabbath, receiving with quiet assent whatever is dealt out to them. The practical working of the system is precisely such as to confirm the drift of our theoretical objections. It goes all along on the assump tion that the actual work essential to the building up of the church is to be performed, not by the body collec tively, but by a particular class acting as proxies for the rest. If we make the analogy of the human body the criterion in this matter, it would be as if all the organs and viscera of the trunk should unite in feeing the brain to perform their functions for them, while they should enjoy an exemption from their appropriate work. Is it possible for any one who is accessible to truth to avoid seeing that this cannot be consistent with a true Divine order ? That order is well expressed by the Apostle of the Gentiles. " From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint sup- plieth, according to the efiectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body to the edify ing of itself in love." This is the true model of a Christian church or society, and the ends of such an in stitution can never be fully realized till there be a return from the present to the primitive order. The precepts and intimations of the apostolic epistles may serve at least as documentary evidence of a his torical kind, of the light in which this matter was viewed in the primitive church. " God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked'; that there should be no schism in the body ; lut that the members should have the same care one for another."—! Cor. xii. 24, 25. " Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye, which are spiritual, re store such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."— -Gal. vi. 1, 2. Who ever was spiritual might feel this a command to him to exercise a kindly office of charity in restoring one who THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 51 had unfortunately lapsed from his uprightness. Each was to bear the other's burdens. Again, " Now we ex hort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient toward all men." — 1 Thes. v. 14. Brethren are here exhorted to warn, comfort, and support each other — a very principal feature of what is considered as the pastor's peculiar work. " Wherefore comfort yourselves, and edify one another, even as also ye do." — Id. v. 1 1. Passages of this nature might be largely multiplied, but it is unnecessary. The gifts and services of the brethren are not to be superseded, in a proper church arrangement, by those of the clerical rank. The feeblest brother has as deep an interest in the general spiritual life of the society as the strongest. It is in fact the duty of every Christian man to edify, warn, support, and comfort his brethren, accord ing to opportunities offered, and that upon the ground of a common concern in the spiritual well-being of the body. It is doubtless much more consonant to the dictates of the natural man to purchase exemption from self-denying duties "at the price of one's annual subscription to the support of a substitute, than to go forward and discharge them in person, especially when their discharge implies, in order to the best effect, that a prevailingly spiritual state of mind shall be sedulously cultivated. Accord ingly nothing is more obvious than the air of easy un concern with which the mass of Christians occupy their seats in the sanctuary on the Sabbath, and pass on through the week, devolving all care of the interests of the church on the spiritual stipendiary who takes them in trust. This is undoubtedly a necessary result of the system in vogue, and therefore we do not speak of it reproachfully in reference to any to whom our remarks may apply. They have been educated and have grown up under the system, and a thousand infiuences have been operating to prevent the suspicion of a wrong in it. They accordingly act as is most natural under the cir cumstances. While an external priesthood is recognized 52 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. in the church, it will not do to have the office remain a sinecure. The people pay the priests for assuming the care of their souls, and why should they do themselves the work which they bargain with another to do in their stead ? The fact is, the evil can never be reached but by striking at the fundamental falsity on which the whole rests, to wit, a distinct priestly or clerical order. This is an institute which, in its present form, is to be traced back to the corruptions of the Roman Catholic Church, where the spirit of hierarchy is the animating soul of that vast corporation. That the great reformer, Luther, had a very clear perception of this is evident from the following passage in his " Letter on Ordination," ad dressed to the Bohemian brethren. . . . " Let that rock stand to you unshaken — that, in the New Testament, of priest externally anointed there is none, neither can be : but if there be any, they are masks and idols, because they have neither example nor prescription of this their vanity, nor any word in Gospels or Epistles of the Apostles ; but they have been erected and intro duced by the mere invention of men, as Jeroboam did in Israel. For a priest, in the new Testament, is not made, but born ; not ordained, but raised up ; and he is born, not by the nativity of the flesh,*but of spirit, that is, of water and the spirit in the laver of regeneration. And all Christians are altogether priests, and all priests are Christians ; and let it be anathema to assert that there is any other priest than he who is a Christian ; for it will be asserted without the word of God, on no authority but the sayings of men, or the antiquity of custom, or the multitude of those who think so Christ wfis neither shaven nor anointed with oil to be made a priest ; wherefore neither is it enough for any follower of Christ to be anointed to become a priest, but he must have something far different ; which when he shall have, he will have no need of oil and shaving. So that you may see that the bishops erred sacrilegiously whilst they make their ordinations so necessary that without these they deny that any one can become a priest, although he is most holy, as Christ himself ; and again, that a priest may be made by them, although he be more wicked than Nero or Sardanapalus. By which what else do they than deny that Christ is a priest with his Christians ? for whilst they discharge their abomi nable office, they make no one a priest unless he first deny that he is a priest, and so by that very circumstance, while they make a priest, they in truth remove him from the priesthood The min istry of the word is common to all Christians ; that one passage, 1 Peter ii., establishes it : ' Te are a royal priesthood that ye may show THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 63 forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.' I beseech you, who are they that are called out of darkness into his marvellous light? Are they only anointed and ordained priests? or are they not all Christians ? But Peter not only gives them the liberty, but commands them to declare the praises of God, which certainly is nothing else than to preach the word of God. . . . . As there is no other showing forth of the praises of God in the ministry of the Word than that common to all, so there is no other priesthood than a spiritual one, also common to all, which Peter hath here described Wherefore it hath now been suffi ciently confirmed most strongly and clearly, that the ministry of the Word is the chief office in the church, altogether unique, and yet com mon to all Christians, not only by right but also of command ; where fore the priesthood also must needs be both excellent and common ; so that against these divine lightnings of God's word of what avail are in finite fathers, innumerable councils, everlasting usages, and the multi tude of the whole world ?" This is bravely said, though it has seldom found an echo in later days, nor are we by any means confident that the heroic Wirtemberger always speaks in his writings on this subject in the same strain. But that is immaterial. He saw then what we see now, that the priesthood of the Eoman Church is the grand element of its power, and that its power in spiritual things is the breath of its nostrils. And though the institution exists in all Protestant Churches in a greatly modified and mitigated form, yet it is to this source that its origin is to be traced, and it is next to impossible to divest it altogether of its inherent tendencies towards the evils of hierarchy and the other forms of abuse to which we have adverted. While frankly enouncing these sentiments we are per fectly aware of the light iu which they will be viewed by the majority of the men of the church. They will look upon it as requiring nearly as much hardihood to deny a visible clergy in the church, as to deny the existence of the church itself. They will feel that a sad havoc is made of all their traditionary and cherished associations rela tive to the church, the ministry, the Sabbath, the worship of God, and indeed everything sacred ; and they will be prompted to put the question, whether we really mean 54 THE PKIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. guite so much as our words would seem to import. As suredly we do ; and we will thank any man to designate the point at which we can consistently stop short of our present position provided our premises are sound. If there is no external priesthood known in the Lord's church, what authority is there for a clergy ? We find it not, and therefore state our conclusions without reserve. No hesitation have we in saying that in the truest and purest state of the church on earth, no other than a spirit ual priesthood or clergy will be known, and what that is has been sufficiently unfolded in our previous remarks. It is a priesthood and a clergy which exists in an utter non-recognition of the distinction between them and the laity. Tliese classes, as contra-distinguished from each other, are wholly unknown to a just ideal of the church. That a multitude of questions should be started as to the sequences of such a theory as we have now an nounced we can readily anticipate. Who shall propa gate the doctrines of the church ? Who shall conduct worship, and how shall it be done? — will be among the first. What will be the use of churches in such a state of things? Or, if we have them, what will be the use of a pulpit if there be no regularly inducted clergyman to fill it ? — will follow in the train. That in alt these respects the adoption of our views would work momen tous changes in the existing order of things there is no shadow of doubt. But of sudden changes we are no ad vocates. We have too correct a conception of the genius of N. C. teaching on this head to think of urging abrupt and violent innovations for which the states of men are not prepared. We know very well that at the present moment they are not prepared to forego a system to which they have long been habituated, and therefore we do_ not urge it. We would have changes introduced neither farther nor faster than the firm and intelligent convictions of N. C. receivers shall call for them. But we do not feel ourselves on this account precluded from broaching important principles. We hold that it is never too early to give utterance to reformatory ideas. THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 55 Thougji not at once aated upon, they are still acting as a secret leaven in the minds of men, and in due time will bring forth their proper fruits. This position, we are persuaded, cannot be logically controverted, and yet the man who ventures to act upon it must make up his mind to do it at his peril. He will not henceforth be regarded as a perfectly sane or safe man. In his reputation he must calculate to pay the penalty always visited upon the disturbers of old notions. " The last offence," says a French author, " forgiven to men is the introduction of a new idea." We write under the full force of this conviction. The broaching of such ideas, however, though somewhat startling at the outset, is less so upon reflection, and as they become familiarized to the thought, they assume new aspects, and gradually convert themselves to powerful elements of action. The Divine Providence has permitted and still tolerates a vicious order of things until his people, in the exercise of rationality and freedom, shall be prompted to institute a better. Meanwhile we have for ourselves no scruples as to compliance with established forms of worship and instruction, so long as we are conscious of inwardly up holding no abstract principle at variance with truth. Ministering truth and good to our fellow-men is ever a laudable use, and a man in doing it is not called upon always to proclaim his conviction that there are things usually connectedt with the function involving grave errors and requiring radical reform. We should deem ourselves signally incompetent to the discussion of the present subject, were we not fully aware of the very great revolution which the ultimation of our views is calculated to produce in the conduct of spiritual affairs. It is impossible for us to be blind to the fact, that the practical doing away of the distinction between clergy and laity, would put entirely a new face upon the services ofthe Sabbath, and present the whole matter of worship in a new light. And what if this were the result? What if the Sabbath gatherings of Christian 56 THE PRIESTaOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. people should p_artake more of a social character ? What if the principle of mutual instruction and ediflcation should replace the present mode, in which a single indi vidual conducts the entire routine ? Is not such a method of instruction more accordant with the spirit of the New Church than that of professional preaching ? This form of teaching was more in place at former periods, prior to the invention of printing, when books were few and expensive, and the mass of the people in Christian coun tries could neither read nor write. In such circum stances, when intelligence was limited, and the general habits of thought and speech not adapted to sustain such a mode of voluntary mutual instruction, it would be more natural that one man should be employed to officiate in behalf of a whole assembly. And so long as that was the case, the clerical caste undoubtedly performed an important use. But in the progress of things, that state of the general Christian mind has been outgrown, and a good degree of general competency to declare truth pre vails. Why then should not those who are " of age" have the privilege of doing their own religious business ? We grant that such a mode of procedure would be liable to abuses, just as is every system of polity where the freedom of the individual is thoroughly secured. But if good is the predominant element in the men of the church, true wisdom will not be wanting, and wisdom dwells evermore with prudence. The truth, moreover, that is derived from good, is always of a prolific or self- multiplying character, so that the word will dwell richly in all utterance even in the humbler and weaker of the brethren, as they are often accounted. The tongue of the stammerer shall speak plain, and as there will be few too ignorant to teach, so there will be none too wise to learn. How is it now ? The trained and professional preacher, being supported for this very work, has time to devote himself to the careful preparation of his discourses, and he will be led, of course, to elaborate them in finished style, and by degrees to conform them to the most ad mired models of composition, and thus to serve up weeklj' THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 57 to his audience an intellectual treat set off in all the graces of Tullian or Tertullian eloquence. The conse quence is, that the mind of the hearer, being accustomed to this kind of pulpit entertainment, comes at length to nauseate the plain and homely style of extemporaneous talk among brethren. And yet who is not conscious that this kind of communication takes a deeper hold of the thoughts and affections and exercises more efficient con trol over the inner man, than the most studied oratorical displays to which one listens with mere passive acquies cence. " The clear discourse, and cold as it is clear, Falls soporific on the listless ear." But a change in this respect, in the conduct of public worship, will draw after it a change in the external ar rangements which the present method has called into requisition. Pulpit and priesthood are inseparable ideas ; and pulpit and pews are related to each other just as are clergy and laity. It is vain to think of abolishing the distinction in the one case and retaining it in the other. The architectural structure of churches is but an ultima tion of the falsities which we have thus far endeavored to expose. The proverbial sanctity of the pulpit must fall before the correction of the errors in which it has originated, as when the fancied " messenger of heaven and legate of the skies" has disappeared, his consecrated standing-place may as well vanish with him. But in these circumstances, can the churches them selves, or the worship to which they are dedicated, be permanently retained ? We doubt if they can, without undergoing the most signal alterations. The motive which prompts such alterations will be the enthronement of charity over faith alone, and charity can never breathe but in an atmosphere of use ; and if use be the governing principle, it cannot but be a question whether the enor mous sums expended upon church buildings, as also in the way of salaries to their official occupants, could not be expended to far greater advantage to the interests of 6* 68 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. the Lord's kingdom in multiplying the issues of the press, and in this way propagating the saving truth of heaven. Plain and moderate buildings, adapted rather to small than to large audiences, and made proportionally numerous, will answer all the demands of those who recognize the church as composed of " living stones" in stead of polished dead ones, and who would devote to beneficence what they can save from extravagance. And in regard to worship and the Sabbath, we can easily con ceive of an equally great improvement founded upon what our enlightened author says on this head. " By worship, according to the order of Heaven, is meant all the ex ercise of good according to the precepts of the Lord : by the worship of God at this day is meant, principally, the worship of the mouth in a temple, both morning and evening ; but the worship of God does not consist essentially in this, but in a life of uses ; this worship is accord ing to the order of Heaven ; the worship of the mouth is also worship, but it is altogether of no avail unless there be worship of the life." — —A, C. 7884. " Worship does not'consist in prayers and in external devotion, but in a life of charity Spiritual affection is what is called charity towards our neighbor ; to be in that affection is true worship ; prayer is what thence proceeds. Hence it is plain that the essential principle of worship is a life of charity, and the instrumental thereof is gesture and prayer ; or that the primary constituent of worship is a life of charity, and its secondary is praying ; from which it is evident that they who place all Divine worship in oral piety, and not in actual piety, err exceedingly." — A, E. 395. " Divine worship primarily consists in the life, of charity ; and, secondarily, in that of piety ; he, therefore, who separates the one from the other, that is, who lives in the practice of piety, and not at the same time in the e-xercise of charity, does not worship God." — H. D. 124. Swedenborg no where disparages external worship, but again and again enjoins it, as A. O. 1175, 1618 ; but he evermore insists that the external apart from the internal in worship is of no avail ; and under the guidance of this principle, we have no doubt that important changes may be advantageously made in the mode of THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 59 conducting it. A significant revelation respecting the true nature of worship meets us in the following extract from ''Heaven <& Hell" (222). " Divine worship in the heavens does not consist in frequenting tem ples, and in hearing preaching, but in a life of love, charity and faith, according to doctrines ; preachings in temples serve only as means of instruction in matters of life. I have spoken with angels on this sub- ject,-and I said, that in the world it is believed that Divine worship is only to frequent temples, hear preaching, attend the sacrament of the supper three or four times every year, and do the other things of wor ship according to the statutes of the church, and likewise set apart particular times for prayer, and then to behave devoutly. The angels said, that these are external things which ought to be done, but that they are of no avail unless there be an internal from which they proceed, and that the internal is a life according to the precepts which doctrine teaches." Whatever, then, goes to make the worship on earth most akin to the worship in heaven, ought to be the object aimed at by the Lord's people, in conducting their Sab bath services. For ourselves, we are firmly of the opinion, that the plan of mutual instruction, on a perfectly volun tary basis, is far better adapted to accomplish this end than the present system, in which a single individual is instar omnium, or a kind of spiritual fao-totum to the congregation. How vastly more desirable that each member of a Christian society, according to his measure of gifts, should contribute his quota to the general stock of instruction and excitation in the spiritual life. Men learn more by the exercise of thought, and the putting forth of affection in the effort to edify others, than by listening to sermons when their faculties of use to others are in abeyance. It is, moreover, a positive disadvantage that men should have a hired functionary to do their thinking for them. Religious meetings, as usually con ducted, are on a plan less manly than district schools, for the congregations do not even recite their lessons, but have them recited by the master. Their problems are all worked out for them, and they sit and hear the solu tions with little interest and little profit. The people actually need, for their own spiritual health, a great part 60 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. of the intellectual exercise from which their, ministers now relieve them. Adult Bible and doctrinal classes are now to a great extent conducted on this plan, and noth ing is more evident than their tendency to develope among the mass of members all the capacities necessary to sustain the system. So would it be in the services of the Sabbath ; and we think it unquestionable that each society of the New Church has a claim upon the powers and resources of all its members. The plea of incompetency will no doubt be urged in regard to multi tudes in the church, but with the same propriety it might be urged that certain portions of the human body are incompetent to contribute any thing towards the perfec tion of the whole. If there be any such part of the bodily structure, it does not belong there. But the fact is, the difficulty in the case supposed arises from the operation of a false standard in regard to what is most useful in the way of social impartation. It is not the most finished and elaborate discourses which do the most good. They excite admiration, but they seldom move the inner springs of action. They play round the head, but they reach not the heart. The j>lain and even homely utterances of a good man, accompanied by the sphere which his goodness engenders, will commend themselves by a certain unction to every kindred mind, and the absence of literary or rhetorical qualities will not be felt. The teachings of the New Church on this subject, dis closing the nature and the relations of goodness and truth, and assuring us that all truth is seminally included in good, ought to have the effect to exclude fastidiousness on this score, and to lay the mind open to the reception both of truth and good even from the humblest sources. Another fair and very important inference from our premises here urges itself upon us. How many infant and feeble societies in the New Church, are kept back and drag along a dying kind of life, from an impression of the almost indispensable necessity of a minister both to their well-being and their being. There is no occa sion, indeed, to be surprised at this, for a clergy will be THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. b'l sure to teach, among its flrst and last lessons, the abso lute necessity of its own order to the welfare of the church, and in this way to lay the spell of inertia upon the mass of the laity. How, then, can they find their hands when they have been so carefully hid away by their spiritual masters ? The effect answers perfectly to the cause, and precludes the language of censure towards the private receivers scattered over the country, for they have merely practiced upon the copy that has been set them. Nor in fact can we properly adopt a tone of severe reproof towards the copy-masters themselves. They, too, have acted according to the light that was in them. They .have not intended either error or evil ; we therefore view the past with all allowance. But it is easy to perceive what the result has been, and continues to be. Dependence upon a superior divinely commis sioned order of teachers and leaders, and the fear of trenching upon the sanctity of their prerogatives, has tended to paralyze exertion on the part of receivers, and to inure and reconcile them to a low state, and a slow progress, in spiritual things. How is this condition to be remedied ? Not by a supposed adequate supply of min isterial laborers in the field, who shall receive a compe tent support from the flocks which they feed. For years and years to come this is utterly out of the question in the New Church. There are scores of expectant clergy men among us at this moment who are ready to enter the vineyard, but who can find none who will pay them their wages. Except in a very few prominent localities in our country, a competent ministerial support is abso lutely hopeless. This, for ourselves, we look upon as a pregnant commentary of the Divine Providence upon the truth of our main positions. It indicates to us that it is not by a clergy that the New Church is either to be sustained or propagated. It must be by eveiy man of the church realizing himself to be a church in the least form, and bound to act as if he were himself charged with the responsibility of the priesthood involved in his church character. All in a society or a neighborhood, 62 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. who have the heavenly doctrines at heart, ought to feel it incumbent upon them, both jointly and severally, to see that their " coal be not quenched," that their lamp go not out. They are each and all to supply the minis ter's lack of service, and every one who enters such a society should do it with a distinct understanding that such are the conditions of membership — that a New Church society is a spiritual firm in which there are no silent partners, but every one is to be an active working member, always carrying with him the conviction that the concern is complete in itself, that it must depend en tirely upon its own efforts, and that its solvency and suc cess can only be secured by every one, without excep tion, feeling as if the result depended wholly upon him. So in the matter before us ; we see no other method by which the little bands of receivers scattered over the country can ever be prompted to arouse themselves from that torpid, dead-and-alive condition into which they are so prone to fall, than by being weaned from reliance on the ministry, and thrown upon their own resources ; and how can this be done without discarding in toto the very fundamental idea of a clergy or a priesthood as a distinct order of men ? A priestly principle there must ever be in the church, but that this principle must ultimate itself in a separate priestly caste under the New Jerusalem dispensation is, we are persuaded, one of the first-born of falsities which unfortunately has made itself " higher than the kings of the earth," i. e., to dominate over some of the chiefest truths of the church. That the fruits of this system haye not been all evil we of course admit, and we have expressly said that we have no " railing accusations" to bring against the parties who have, without consciously intending it, fastened a false and pernicious system of clerical order on the church. But we feel, at the same time, no restraint from pointing to the " mischiefs manifold" which refer themselves to this source. Among these we have barely adverted to one which demands a more definite presentation. We allude to the every where prevalent idea that the Lord's THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSmP. 63 New Church is to be propagated mainly by the agency of preaching. This certainly cannot be if our previous position is sound, that the very office of the preacher, as ordinarily apprehended, is a fallacy. Let this position be tried upon its merits. " But how is the gospel of the kingdom to be proclaimed ?" it will be asked. We reply, by means of the press and the living voice, not of the minister or the missionary as such, but of the ordinary member as such. In the mode now specified, every so ciety or circle of receivers is to regard itself as virtually a band of propagandists, whose main business it is, in this world, to live and labor for this end. To this every thing else is to be subordinate, without at the same time being neglected. Worldly resources are needed for spir itual uses, and when every thing is viewed in relation to eternal ends, we are doing our utmost to superinduce a church-state upon the world at large — the grand finale to which the Divine Providence is shaping its counsels. Nothing, indeed, is more abhorrent to the true genius of the New Church than a spirit of indiscriminate prose- lytism ; but there is doubtless a growing receptivity in the world which prefers a claim to be provided for, and this claim will hardly fail to be met if the principles of church polity now advocated be thoroughly carried out. The fact is, the true church of the Lord is in its own na ture self-propagating. It diffuses itself by outgrowth or offshoots, like trees and vines. There is a spontaneous multiplication of societies wherever a true spiritual vital ity exists to give the start. There is in the essential life of a true New Church society a constant conatus to re produce itself in similar forms, and if the converse of the apostle's aphorism, that " evil communications corrupt good manners," hold good, to wit, that " good communi cations purify bad manners," then we may reasonably hope that the quiet intercourse ofthe men of the church with others, their blameless example, their solid, if not imposing intelligence, will be constantly operating, like a wholesome leaven in the general mass of mind till the whole is leavened. The upright walk, the sphere of 64 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. charity, the unwearied study of use — all which will be sure to make themselves known and felt — will no doubt effect as much in concentrating attention upon the truths of the church as the discourses and appeals of a commis sioned clergy, who will always have to contend, more or less, with the prejudice founded upon the fact that the preaching of the gospel is with them a paid calling in stead of a voluntary service. But this noiseless and unobtrusive insemination of good and truth, within the range of each one's personal influence, is not the sole ground of reliance in the prop agation of the doctrines and life of the New Church. The press is the great executive ministry of the present age. It is by its instrumentality that the furtherance of the Lord's kingdom on the earth is mainly to be effect ed. Here, then, is the channel through which New Church efforts are to be made to tell upon the progress of truth and righteousness. The press we deem a vastly more efficient agency of the church than an ordained clergy ; and could the large sums annually expended in paying salaries and building churches, be laid out in publishing and circulating the writings of the church, we are satisfied that a far more substantive use would be accomplished for the cause of the New Jerusalem. And let us here say, that while the employment of lay mis sionaries and colporteurs in great numbers and on a large scale may not be without its good results, yet, after all, this system of operation is apt to serve as a virtual dis charge of the mass of members from the duty of direct personal effort in this sphere. The proper state of things will not be reached till every one who prizes the spirit ual treasures of the New Church shall feel himself con strained to become a missionary to his neighbor, without waiting to have the work done to his hands by a proxy. Why should not every Newchurchman feel himself bound, according to his ability, to keep on hand a supply of the writings with which to furnish, by sale or gift, those whom he may regard as proper objects of such a favor ? The apathy which has heretofore so widely pre- THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. 65 vailed on this score, is .no doubt referable to the same general cause to which we have traced so many of the «vils that have afflicted the church. The obligations of duty have been commuted on the principle of clerical substitution, and instead of being sacredly discharged have been secularly disbursed. \Ve look, eventual!}', for an entirely different procedure in this respect. We can form no idea of a truly prosperous state of the church, but one in which the individual shall more and more assert himself — in which individual effort and action shall not be so perpetually merged in association. Still we would by no means forego this kind of ministra- i;ion to the uses of the New Church. In the matter of printing and publishing they are of immense importance. But our ideal of a zealous Newchurchman, is of one who is so intent upon ministering to the spiritual weal of his fellow-creatures, tbat just in proportion tp his 'syorldlj means, he will not only purcuase aiiJ distribute the works of the church, but, if needs be, will actually, in particular cases, publish and distribute them at his own cost, where he is persuaded a great use will be thereby accomplished. At any rate, most cordially will he come forward to sustain the labors of those who, as a class, would fain dedicate their powers, by means of the pen, ¦to the building up of the walls and temples of the New .Jerusalem. But we are admonished that we cannot indefinitely extend our thoughts even upon the momentous theme before us. We have uttered ourselves upon it with all frankness and freedom, and in full view of the conse quences. We have been all along aware of the " revolt of mien," of the estrangement of confidence, of the alienated sympathy, which the declaration of such senti ments will not fail to encounter in the minds of many of our brethren. That they will strike their minds as the ¦very extreme of destructive radicalism, is more than probable. Nevertheless, we have spoken advisedly; .and however we may deprecate the sinister judgment and the sombre auguries of those whose good opinion we .7 66 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. covet, we are prepared to encounter them, if fidelity to truth makes it inevitable. AVe have only to_ request, that whatever exceptions may be taken to the views pro pounded, they may be taken to the abstract argument itself, and not to the practical inferences which we may be supposed to draw from it. We can readily perceive how natural would be the conclusion, that if an external priesthood in the New Church be a falsity, it ought of course to be regarded as a nonentity, and that therefore the whole system should be abandoned instanter, as a crying abomination before heaven. We have already spoken in pre-arrest of any such sentence as this. We are no advocates of sudden changes in the fixed habits and usages of the Christian world. We would precipi tate nothing before the fitting time. The present order of things involves, indeed, a multitude of evils, but it has gradually supervened upon the order of heaven, and gradually must it be removed. Meanwhile we have for ourselves not the slightest hesitation, in view of the pre sent exigency, to act in a capacity which is ordinarily termed clerical, for the Divine Providence has the lowest as well as the highest states of the church under its auspices ; and for the same reason, we have no denunci ations to utter against the general body of those who now sustain the sacred office, and of whom it cannot justly be doubted that they have entered it with the most upright intentions, and who continue to administer it according to the best light they have respecting its nature and ends. But all this does not vacate the force of our reasoning. In respect to our main position— the utter repugnance of a priestly or clerical caste to the genius of the New Dis pensation — we are firm and immovable ; and fain would we have every member of the Lord's Church appreciate fully his birthright, and act under the consciousness of the high things involved in his prerogative. Eegarding it no more as an exclusive prerogative, confined to a cer tain privileged order, and fixing the thought, not upon the shadow but upon the substance, let every New Church Christian realize, that whatever is embraced THE PRIESTHOOD .«lND THE KINGSHIP. 67 within the functions of the priestly and the royal office, pertains truly to him in and under the Lord ; and let him therefore walk feeling charged with the responsibility of this sacred character. Every one without exception is a king and a priest, so far as he is in the truth and good of the Lord's Kingdom, and that, too, " uuimpeached of usurpation, and to no man's wrong." It is not alone in consecrated ranks that we are to look for the priests of the Lord's heritage. Wherever you find one that is meek, gentle, guileless, loving, truthful, and wise — who is in the life of love — whose sphere is bland and attractive, because his spirit is deeply leavened with charity — whose speech is marked by a certain unction indicative of an inward fountain of delight — there is to you one whom you may safely acknowledge as a " priest of the Most High God." it matters not that ordaining hands may not have been laid upon his head. It matters not that he may be unable to bring due credentials of the fact of his falling into the line of the apostolic succession. To you he is a priest, because it is in these very qualities that the priestly principle consists, and if you possess these qualities, you thereby become in like manner a priest to others. The unction of love is the only oil of consecration by which the true priests of the church are now to be inaugurated. A similar vein of remark is applicable also to the kingship, the spiritual dignity founded upon Truth. The man most largely endowed with this principle, when derived from good, is clothed, from the necessity of the case, with a sort of roj^alty, which will be very certain to be felt and acknowledged by those who come in contact with his sphere. In this republican land, the name of king, as a civil ruler, is very offensive, and that too upon very good grounds. But the true interior quality deno ted by the title, to wit, truth ruling, and involving the idea of ascendency, predominance, weight, influence, moral control, characterize the man to whom the term is applicable. JEtis judgment rules in counsels, and submis sion to it is easy and natural. " In heaven one prefers 68 THE PRIESTHOOD AND THE KINGSHIP. another to himself as he excels in intelligence and wis dom : the love itself of good and truth, produces this effect, that every one subordinates himself, as it were, of himself, to those who are in the wisdom of good and the intelligence of truth superior to himself." — A. O. 7773. There is nothing forced or galling, to a right mind, in the deference paid to truth, when assured that it is_ truth — truth flowing from a Divine source — for it seems identical with the light of our own intelligence which we cannot choose but obey ; whereas, let any one endeavor to bear down heavily upon us by the simple dead weight of official standing, of power and authority, and we are soon goaded into indignant resistance. Such govern ment is not royalty but despotism, and against this the free spirit of the Lord's people arrays and braces itself with instinctive promptitude. But the sceptre of genuine truth is a golden sceptre, i. e. having the element of good as its basis ; and such a sceptre is wielded by every one of the spiritual kings in the Lord's Church. To this species of royalty let every son of the kingdom aspire, and in him will be fulfilled the self-affirmed but divinely authorized predication of the inspired Word, which is but an echo to the language of our text, " Thou hast made us unto our God Kings and Priests, and we shall reign upon the earth." PREACHING. IN KEPLY TO EEV. GEOEGE MELD. In the second volume of the Repository (Feb. 1849) we had occasion to notice the Heport of a Committee on Lectures and Licenses made at the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Michigan and Northern Indiana Associa tion of the New Church, held Feb. 3, 1849, in which it was resolved, as the sense of the committee, that " Every member of this Association, in accordance with what is taught in Doct. Char. No. 101, consider the communica tion of free and sincere instruction on religious matters, according to his ability and disposition, to be at once his duty and his privilege." From this resolution the Eev. George Field, as a minority of one, dissented, and offered a report, subsequently published, which was entitled " A Protest of the Minority of the Committee on Lectures and Licenses against that part of the (majority) Beport which acknowledges the right of Lay Inauguration into the priestly office ; and of Preaching without Ordination or License." This Protest of Mr. Field we published in the March number of the Kepository, (1849,) and in reference to the following paragraph, felt constrained to advert to what we deemed a philological error in his reasoning upon Acts, viii. 4, " They that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the Word," from which the inference is d rawn in the majority report that these were laymen. Upon this Mr. F. remarks : " Both in the Greek and Latin, there are two different words used for that which is rendered in English by this one word, preaching. In the Latin, one word is prcBdico, which is literally what we mean by preaching, and is used to denote the addressing of a large number of persons, either in the Synagogue, the Temple, or the open air. The other word is evangelus, or an evangelist, i. e. the bearer of good news, such as went from house to house, bearing intelligence of the joyful 7* '70 PREACHING. tidings ; those who evangelized therefore were not performing thepro25er functions of a priest, or publicly preaching, but such as by private in struction and exhortation went from place to place. 'This, though sometimes performed by the Apostles themselves, was nevertheless, more particularly the province of the evangclizers, who are called ' Assistant preachers of the Apostles.' (See Gr. Lex.) Now the word used in the passage above quoted (Acts viii. 4) for preaching is evangelizantes, or the carrying with them wherever tliey were scattered abroad the Gospel news. But in the very next verse, where mention is made of Philip (an Apostle) going down to them and preaching to the citizens of Samaria, who were assembled to hear him, the word used is pradicabat. Thus, this text actually refutes the very position it was advanced to prove." — Repm-t, p. 44, 45. To this we replied in the following remarks : Now the fact is, the original word here is ixijpvsas, ekerusse, which is not fairly represented by the English wordpreach. Campbell, in his Dissertation on this and kindred terms {Prelim. Dissert, vol. i., p. 230), after re marking that kerusso comes from kerux, a crier, also a herald, and signifies to cry, publish, or proclaim, and kerugma, the thing published or proclaimed, goes on to say : — " To preach is defined by Johnson, in his dic tionary, ' to pronounce tx public discourse upon sacred subjects.' This expresses with sufficient exactness the idea we commonly affix to tbe term. For we may admit that the attendant circumstances of church, pulpit, text, worship, are but appendages. But the definition given by the English lexicographer cannot bo called an inter pretation of the term kerusso, as used in scripture. For so far is it from being necessary that the kerugma should be a discourse, that it may be only a single sentence, and a very short sentence too. Nay, to such brief notifica tions we shall find the term most frequently applied. Besides, the word kerusso and kerugma were adopted with equal propriety, whether the subject were sacred or civil. Again, though the verb kerusso always applied public notice of some event either accomplished or about to be accomplished, often accompanied with a warning to do or forbear something ; it never denoted either a comment on, or explanation of, any doctrine, critical ob- PREACHING. 71 servations on, or illustrations of, any subject, or a chain of reasoning in proof of a particular sentiment. And if so, to pronounce publicly such a discourse as, with us, is denominated sermon, homily, lecture or preaching, would by no means come within the meaning of the word in its first and most common acceptation. It is not therefore so nearly synonymous with didasko, to teach, as is now commonly imagined." To these remarks Mr. F. sent us a rejoinder, which was published in the Eepository for May(18i9). This we now give in full with our comments upon the positions involved : Dear Sie, Will you be kind enough to show me in what way my remarks on Acts viii. 4, " betray a philological error," as I confess myself at a loss to see it, from your present criticism. I have stated that there are generally two words, both in the Greek and Latin Testaments, which are given in the English version by the one word " preaching ;" and that the Latin word answering to the Greek ekerusse is prcedico, which is literally what we mean by preaching, aud is used to denote the ad dressing of a large number of persons, either in the Synagogue, the Temple, or the open air. Whatever force there may be in your objection, seems to be con veyed in the assertion that the original Greek word ekerusse, " is not fairly represented by the English word preach." On this, I would re mark, that I believe iu every case where the word " ekerusse" is used in the Greek Testament, its synonym in the Latin is prcedico, prcedicans, &c. I presume, therefore, that it will be admitted that ekerusse is fairly represented in the Latin tongue by prcedico as its equivalent. And not only from such authorities as I have at hand does it appear that the English word " preach," is synonymous with the Latin prcedico and the Greek ekerusse, but that the meaning given in each language is the same ; as confirmed by the constant use of this word in the New Testament in the same sense as given by myself, and as defined by lexicographers, and admitted by you. In the London Encyclopaedia this word is thus defined, " Peeach — French, prescher ; Latin, prcedico ; to deliver a public discourse upon sacred subjects ; to proclaim ; publish ; inculcate : — a preacher is one who discourses publicly on religion. ..." There is not anything publicly notified, but we may properly say it is preached.' — Hooker." Worcester defines it thus, " Preach — [prcedico, Jjatm — precher,Fv.] to discourse publicly on the Gospel, &c. ; to pronounce a public dis course upon a sacred subject :" also, " to proclaim or publish in reli gious orations or sermons ; to inculcate publicly ; to teach." And 72 PREACHING. Webster, in strict agreement with the above, says, it is to " pronounce a public discourse on a religious subject, or from a text of Scripture. To discourse on the Gospel way of salvation, and exhort to repentance. To proclaim ; to publish in religious discourses," &c. If you will compare these definitions with the one given by myself as the meaning of ekerusse and prcedico, I think you must admit that they offree precisely; nothing is said of the length ot time used in preaching ; whether it be an hour, half an hour, or fifteen minutes ; but that the preachers were the public heralds ofthe Lord's advent ; speak ing by authority as a herald should. And so far as I can find, in every place where the Lord was thus publicly proclaimed, it was by a com missioned preacher, and in every instance where it is recorded, the Greek word used is cfernsse, which is answered in the Latin hy prcedico. Thus when John preaclied in the wilderness (Mark i. 4), " There went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem," &c. : and he preached the remission of sins, and said, " there cometh one mightier than I, after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose." " And ho said unto them, Let us go into the next towns that I may preach there also. And he preached in their syna gogues throughout all Galilee," Mark i. 38, 39. And Jesus "preached in the synagogues of Galilee," Luke iv. 44. And Sa,u\ preached Christ in the synagogues, Acts ix. 20. Peter also says, that the Lord com manded him " to preach unto the people," Acts x. 42. Ia all these places the Greek word is the same {ekerusse), and the meaning coincides precisely with that given above of preaching. How long time they preached, is not known. It is not probable that in any case all the words they uttered are recorded, or but little more than the subject of their discourse. Thus upon one occasion in the syna gogue when the Lord took a text from the prophet Isaiah, " The Spirit of the Lord is upon me," &c., and " the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And He began to say unto them. This day is the Scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare Him witness and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth," Luke iv. — those divine words which produced this astonished feeling do not appear to be recorded at all. I cannot but think also that yonr author (Campbell) must be wrong in saying that this word (ekerusse) was " adopted with equal propriety, whether the subject were sacred or civil." Is it ever used in the New Testament to proclaim merely civil news ? It seems to me to contain too much of the name of the Lord (kurios) in it, to admit of its being properly used for any other purpose than to announce His advent ; i. e. a coming in the name of the Lord ; — proclaiming by authority and dogmatic teaching His coming to redeem and save — crying that name in the wilderness, and publishing it abroad in all the earth. Thus preaching is truly a public annunciation of the Lord, and the conditions of salvation, to collect audiences whether at His first or second advent ; whilst evangelizing was properly the more private act of telling it to individuals or families, in a conversational, or social capacity ; as when PREACHING. 73 it is written that Philip preached to the Enunch, the word used is not ekerusse, but evangelisnto. As I wish to be right in every point, on this subject as well as others, I have endeavored to be so ; but if you in any particular show me truly where I err, I shall be thankful for the information, and will endeavor to profit by it. But permit me to say a word more in con clusion ; I think you have hardly been just in making it appear that the weight of my objection to the inference drawn from the narrative in Acts viii. 4, depended upon what you have termed a " philological error," as it appears to me to be refuted without the verbal criticism which I offered. With sincere regard for your zeal in the cause of the New Jerusalem, I remain very truly, yours, Geoege Field. Detroit, Mich., 1849. The ground upon which we employed the phrase " philological error," in reference to Mr. Field's report, was what we deemed the want of a due discrimination in regard to the Scripture usage of the terms generally rendered in our version to preach, and the building an important conclusion upon a translation instead of appeal ing directly and mainly to the original. He says, for example, in the passage quoted, that, " both in the Greek and Latin there are two different words used for that which is rendered in English by this one word, preach ing. In the Latin, our word is prcedico, which is literally what we mean by preaching, and is used to denote the addressing of a large number of persons either in the Synagogue, the Temple, or the open air." Now it is plain that this is interpreting the Greek from the Latin — whereas, the reverse is the true process — and leading the English reader to suppose that prmdico in Latin, and preach in English are perfect equivalents to kerusso in Greek. This we attempted to show, in regard to the lat ter, is not the case, and with this view we quoted, at some length, from Campbell, a passage going to prove that the leading idea conveyed by the Greek kerusso, from kerux, a crier or herald, is not fairly represented by the leading idea involved in the English word preach, which is defined by Johnson and by Mr. Field's authori ties, " to pronounce a public discourse upon sacred sub- 74 PREACHING. jects." The scope of our brother's argument is to evince that the function indicated by the term translated ^reac/i was not properly to be performed by laymen, although the office denoted by evangelizo (from evangelos, evangel ist) might be discharged by them. "Those who evan gelized were not performing the proper functions of a priest or publicly preaching, but such as by private in struction and exhortation, went from place to place." Now, to say nothing of the implication iu these words, that public preaching was a part of the priest's office, whereas his duty was solely to offer sacrifices and minis ter at the altar, the function of preaching, according to the genuine purport of the original word, was as open to what are considered the laity as that denoted by the term for evangelizing. As it implies, in its dominant import, simply announcing, proclaiming, pvhlishing, or acting the part of a herald or crier, every one who had himself received the message of the Gospel, was at liberty to announce or promulgate it to others. As Campbell in his preliminary dissertations has gone most elaborately into the usage of the New Testament writers in respect to this whole class of words having re lation to what is usually understood by preaching, I shall again draw upon his pages in this connection. " Further, I must take notice, that though announcing publicly the reign of the Messiah comes always under the denomination, kerussein, no moral instructions, or doctrinal explanations, given either by our Lord, or by his apostles are ever, either in the Gospels or in the Acts, so denominated. Thus, that most instructive discourse of our Lord, the longest that is recorded in the Gospel, commonly named his sermon on the mount, is called teaching by the evangelist, both in introducing it, and after the conclusion (Matt. v. 2, vii. 28, 29). ' Opening his mouth, he taught them, saying :' and, ' when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished, at his doctrine^ his manner of teaching. It is added, 'for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the Scribes.' He is said to have been employed in teaching JPPE ACHING. 75 (Matt. xiii. 54, Mark vi. % LtuW ^i- 1^, 22) when the wisdom, which shone forth in his diecOnrees, excited the astonishment of all who heard him, Iti lil^e manner, the instructions he gave by parables, are callea .teaching the people, not preaching to them (Mafk iv. 1, 2) u^d those given in private to his apostles, are in the sam?' 'way styled (Mark viii. 31) teaching, neter preaching. A-w if teaching and preaching be found sometimes coupled together, the reason appears to be, because their teaching, in the beginning of this new dispensation, must Jiave been frequently introduced by announcing the Messii.' l^j which alone was preaching. The explanations, admoni tions, arguments and motives, that followed, came under the denomination of teaching. Nor does anything else spoken by our Lord and his disciples, in his lifetime, appear to have been called preaching, but this single sentence, ' Eepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' In the Acts of the Apostles, the difference of meaning in the two words is carefully observed. The former is always a general and open declaration of the Messiah's reign, called emphatically the good news, or Gospel ; or, which amounts to the same, the announcing of the great foundation of our hope, the Messiah's resurrection ; the latter comprehends every kind of instruction, public or private, that is necessary for illustrating the nature and laws of this kingdom, for confuting gainsay ers, per suading the hearers, for confirming and comforting believers. The proper subject for each is fitly expressed in the conclusion of this book (Acts xxxviii. 31), where, speaking of Paul, then confined at Rome in a hired house, the author tells us that he received all who came to him, '•preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.' An nouncing to them the reign of God, and instructing them in everything that related to the Lord Jesus Christ." In a subsequent paragraph he thus comments on the Latin translation of the original : — " In regard to the manner wherein this word has been translated, with which I shall finish what relates 76 PREACHING. peculiarly to it, we may observe th&t prmdicare, used in the Vulgate, and in all the Latin versions, corresponds entirely to the Greek word in its primitive meaning, ana signifies to give public notice by proclamation, in this sense it had been used by the Latin classics long befo e the Latin translation of the Bible mtp their tongue But prmdicare, having been emp oyed uniformly in rendering 'keruSmni-^ot only in ^l^e history, bum he Epistles Keru.. <- , J ,^ - a signification different has derived from the latter u.. ^,^ ^ ^^^^^^ and much more limited than it has i^ ^ fion is that Now, this additional or acquired signfficw.. "ostics • which has principally obtained amongst ecclesia ' and hence has arisen the sole meaning in moderil lau- guages ascribed to the Word, whereby they commonly render the Greek kerusso. The Latin wofcl is manifestly that from which the Italian prwdicarCf the French preacher, and the English to preach, are derived. Yet these three words correspond to the Latin only in the last mentioned and ecclesiastical sense, not in the primi tive and classical, which is also the Scriptural sense in the Gospel and Acts. Thus the learned Academicians della Crusca, in their Vocabulary, interpret the Italian predicare, not by the Latin prmdicare, its etymon, but by concionari, concionem habere ; terms certainly much nearer than the other to the import of the word used in the other two languages mentioned, though by no means adapted to express the sense of kerussein in the historical books. This is another evidence of what was observed in a former dissertation, that a mistake, occasioned by supposing the word in the original, exactly correspondent to the term in the common version, by which it is usually rendered, is often confirmed, instead of being corrected by recurring to translations into other modern tongues, inasmuch as from the same, or similar causes, the like deviation from the original import has been produced in these languages as in our own." From all this we may perhaps deem ourselves war ranted in applying the phrase " philological error" to the remarks of Mr. Field on the import of the original word PREACHING. 77 for preaching. In regard to the peculiar meaning of evangelizo, evangelos, as denoting the impartation of good news, our friend is no doubt correct, but when he would make it a distinction between this term and kerusso, that the one donoted a function which none but the clergy could properly perform, while the other fell within the sphere of laical uses, we are obliged to dissent from his position altogether. And it is worthy of notice that while in Acts viii. 4, 5, we read that when " they were scattered abroad and went every where preaching {evangellizantes) the word, then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached {ekerusse) Christ unto them ;" yet in v. 12, of the same chapter we find the phraseology varied ; but when they believed Philip preaching {evangellizomeno) the things concerning the Kingdom of God," &c. Indeed as a Newchurchman we presume Mr. Field will appreciate the following note of Mr. Clowes on Luke viii. 1, "And it came to pass after ward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching (Jierrusson) and declaring the glad tidings {evang ellizomenos) of the kingdom of God." " A dis tinction," says Mr. Clowes, " is here made between preaching (Gr. kerrusso) and declaring the glad tidings of {evangellizomenos) ; preaching having more respect to the affection of divine and heavenly good in the will, whilst declaring the glad tidings qf, has more respect to the illumination of the divine and heavenly truth in the understanding. Thus both expressions combined have reference to and mark the divine and heavenly marriage of good and truth, with which the whole world is replen ished." If this be well founded, then it would seem that preaching rather than evangelizing denotes that " insinuation of good" which Swedenborg allows to every member of the Church, while he apparently restricts the " insinuation of truth" to the " teaching minister." We insert, in conclusion, an extract from " Conder's Protestant Non-Conformity," a very able work, treating of the fundamental principles of ecclesiastical policy, it is not the work of a Newchurchman, but it contains 78 PREACHING. ideas very much in accordance with New Church prin ciples, and for ourselves we regard the following extract as decidedly of that character. " Truth by whomsoever it is promulgated, cannot but possess the same intrinsic authority. The fact that an individual does or does not preach the truth of Christ, cannot be made to depend upon any hypothesis respect ing his having, or his not having, the right to preach it. If he preaches the Gospel, the fact is placed beyond dis pute that he is competent to the exercise of the Christian ministry, and what is there that can be interposed between the competence and the right ? Were our assent required to this position, that it is not every one who chooses to assume the ministerial function that is compe tent to discharge it with fidelity and efficacj', there would be no difficulty in coming to an agreement ; but the ad vocates of ecclesiastical restrictions, proceed upon the supposition that the self-constituted teacher is possessed of the requisite knowledge, the moral competency ; a thing very different from mere choice ; nevertheless, his right and his authority arc represented as dependent on human appointment. If, however, as we believe, this authority is of a purely spiritual nature, and the preach ing of the Gospel is one of those religious actions, which are not subject to magisterial control, while Ave deny that any man may preach merely because he chooses, we affirm that his choice, which may possibly spring from a sense of duty, is a sufficient reason in the sight of man. A person cannot be said to believe because he chooses to believe ; he does not understand that which he preaches because he chooses to understand it. The will is not itself the adequate cause of such voluntary actions. If there is any truth in the Scripture declara tion, that ' the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, but he that is spiritual judgeth all things,' — then, we must admit that a capacity for preaching the_ Gospel with intelligence, is not a matter dependent either on human fancy on the one hand. PREACHING. 79 or on political regulations on the other. The usurpation of the sacred office by incompetent persons, is an evil which the interposition of ecclesiastical restrictions is ill adapted to mitigate. " But further : every individual has a natural right to the free assertion and argumentative maintenance of his own opinions, provided those opinions are not subversive of social order. If no objection lies against the nature of his sentiments, no criminality can attach to the most un reserved expression of them. It would be indeed strange that this natural right should be lessened in pro portion to the certain truth and supreme importance of what he teaches. Yet those who would restrict the exer cises of the Christian ministry, rest their arguments on this consideration, that it is the Gospel which is preached. The objection is taken not against the truth of what is taught, but against the authority of the teacher, as if his natural freedom in respect of the assertion of what he knows to be true, and feels to be infinitely consequential, underwent some mysterious modification, when the truths which he labors to propagate relate to the salvation of the soul. ' Master,' said the disciples to our Lord, ' we saw one casting out demons in thy name, and we forbade him, because lie foUowetii not with us.' Our Lord's reply stands on record as a rejjroof of the officious zeal of those who, in a similar spirit of worldly wisdom and sec tarian policy, would impose laws on the church which Christ has not imposed, and exclude from the ministry those whom he has not excluded : — ' Forbid him not ; for he that is not against us, is for us.' — ' Wherefore I give you to understand,' says St. Paul, when treating expressly of spiritual gifts, and of the essential unity of the Church, ' that no man speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus accursed, and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost. There are diversities of operation, but it is the same God, which worketh all in all.' Neither the right, then, to exercise the minis terial function, nor the authority annexed to it, originates in the will, or is dependent upon the appointment, of man. 80 PREACHING. " Every faithful preacher of the Gospel, in fulfilling the will of Christ, claims to be considered as invested with a necessary ministerial authority ; an authority simply and entirely resulting from the message which he promulgates and the command which he fulfils ; an authority under which the Christian evangelist goes forth to execute a commission extending to all nations, and to every individual of every nation under heaven ; a moral or rather spiritual authority, distinct from the pastoral jurisdiction, which rests upon particular rela tions originating in appointment and choice ; distinct from whatsoever has its source in the will of man ; and attaching to whomsoever, as the bearer of the evangeli cal message, we may regard as the organ of Christ. The ministry is of necessity one in kind : it must, therefore, as regards the discharge of it by any individual, be either that of ' the Spirit of truth,' or of ' the Spirit of error ;' it is either efficient, as the preaching of Christ, or it is wholly inefficient and unauthorized. Official desig nation, ecclesiastical dignity, can make no difference in the character of the ministry exercised by any man in the Church of Christ. The humblest self-constituted teacher, who is possessed of the appropriate credentials of the ministerial character, in the purity of his doc trines, the success of his labors, and the unblemished tenor of his life, is invested with an authority to which no circumstantial additaments of human appointment are requisite to impart validity ; it requires no sanction from man, for with man it does not originate. A preacher may be undeniably deficient in some of those subsidiary qualifications which constitute a 7iatural fitness for the office of teacher ; but the capacity for preaching the truth of Christ, so as to fulfil the purposes of the Christian ministry, is, let it never be forgotten, a spiritual capacity; and where this is possessed, it is in vain, and worse than in vain, for us to withhold our recognition of the essential character and authority of the Christian minister as ex isting in that individual, how humble soever his station PREACHnfG. 81 or his acquirements. With the utmost propriety such a man may appeal to those to whose consciences he has been commended by the efficacy of his pious labors : ' If I be not' a minister ' unto others, yet doubtless I am to you ; for the seal of my' ministry ' are ye in the Lord.' " — Prot. Non-Com. vol. i. p. 166-174. ' THE MINISTRY. LETTEE FEOM EEV. T. O. PRBSCOTT. [N. C. Repos., May, 1850.] Me. Bditoe, My attention has been attracted by reports in your Magazine, and also by the article in the last No. of the New Church Quarterly on the su'bject of the Ministry, lay-preaching, ordination, &c. I was also reading, a day or two since, your remarks on the subject of your own ordination, in the July No. of the Eepository. These things, my dear sir, have brought my ideas in some degree to a focus on the subject of the ministry, aud I should like to have a little conversation with you on this important topic. I am a lover of freedom, and at the same time a lover of order. I am desirous to see maintained the greatest degree of freedom consistent with Divine aud Heavenly order, and the real good of the church and of individuals, and I feel anxious to dis cover what is the true medium. I believe your own mind to be in & similar state in this respect. Perhaps, then, a little comparison of views on this subject would aid both of us. The way I look at the institution of the ministry, is somewhat as follows : First, I believe the ministry to be, both from the teachings of the Word, and the writings of the Church, as also from all histori cal evidence, from the conclusions of reflection and common sense, and from a consideration of the wiMits of mankind, a distinct office and use. Setting aside other grounds fur such a belief, I think the teachings of the Church entirely explicit on this point Priests and the priesthood and the clergy are spoken of everywhere in the writings, as a distinct office, filled by a distinct class of individuals. This is so manifest that, as it seems to me, no one can have a doubt of it, but one who has made up his mind, and persists in holding another view. Num berless quotations might be made from the writings upon this point, but it is needless, for it pervades their whole tenor. The view, therefore, contained in one of the reports before referred to, that all internal men who have learned interior doctrine and con firmed it by the Word, are meant by the clergy, and that all who from love to the Lord and charity to the neighbor are in truth, &c., arc meant by " teaching ministers" — surprised me exceedingly ; the serious holding up of such a view seemed to me to argue rather a spirit of ingenuity, and desire to support a preconceived opinion, than wis dom or truth, 'that it is quite unsound may be seen by a single quo tation from tho writings. In heaven all certainly are internal men (at least in the higher heavens), and all there are in truths from love and charity ; yet even there we are taught that preachers are a distinct TIIB MINISTRY. 83 class, and that " it is not allowed any except them to teach in the temples," H. ^ H. 226 ; and in T, C, R, 661, one of these, named as the " high priest," and calling himself " minister of the church" in heaven, is described and presented to view. But, in the second place, if ministers or the clergy be a distinct body of individuals, by whom should they be appointed to their office ? In heaven, as we learn, they are appointed, as all officers are, directly by the Lord : but in this lower world, this duty, like every other, is left to man to perform, " acting in freedom according to reason." How then should they be appointed ? Should it be by other ministers ? I cannot see any principle on which they should. As to the figment of " Apostolic succession," we know from our author, A. R. 802, as pro perly quoted in the report above mentioned, that the notion of trans ferring the Holy Spirit from one man to another, was a mere invention from the Babylonish love of dominion. But shall a man appoint him self? In other words, is it proper or expedient that every one who chooses should declare himself a minister of the church, and proceed to exercise the functions of the office ? I answer, No .' for two or three reasons. One is, that it is well known, and any one of observation must have been struck with the fact, that it is not always those who think themselves qualified, and who have a desire to preach, who are qualified for the work. I have been struck with this myself, in several instances. It is often not a spiritual love of use, evidently, that prompts such desire, or even the " genius stirring within," or the spirit of the Lord at all, but sometimes a mere love of display, or a high opinion of one's own intelligence, or the desire of distinction, which is at the bottom. The true preachers, as biography shows, are those men who have been reluctant to come forward, who had to be forced almost into the office, by their friends, who knew their fitness (in the biographies of Massillon, Fenelon, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others) . And this backwardness, I can easily understand, is the effect of the very power and spirit moving in the centre of their souls, and giving light to their minds, which by its very brilliancy at once interiorly urges them on, and yet makes them shrink from the great and high duty, which the Spirit presents to them to be done. Just as the common mind thinks it can do anything while the man of genius is cautious and timid, aud fearful he cannot bring into act the grand conceptions that burn within him. Thus, then, it is no criterion of a man's fitness to preach, that he has a desire to preach. But another and an unanswerable reason why a man should not appoint himself is, that it is not a private office but a public one. The whole church has an interest at stake in its preachers. They stand in a manner as its representatives before the world ; and their character, both intellectual and moral, will affect greatly the estimation in which will be held both the opinions which they utter, and also the members who entertain those opinions. This being the case, the whole church has a right to have a voice in the si THE MINISTRY appointment of the ministers of the church. Nay, there is no way in which that general voice can express itself so justly or truly, nor in deed do I perceive any other practicable way, than through the Annual Conference or Convention, which is the nearest approximation to a representation of the church at large (or in a country as extensive as the IJnited States, perhaps a State Association would be a body sufficiently general). This, then, my dear sir, is the simple and obvious reason, in my opinion, why the Convention should appoint the minis ters of the church ; and why it is not right for an individual or for any single society or small body to appoint a minister ; because, a minister, once appointed, does become, by custom and courtesy, if by no other rule, the 'representative, and is received as the minister of the church at large. Therefore the church at large has an interest in, aud should have a voice in, the appointment. But in the next place, the person thus appointed, chosen, or ap proved of (or recognized, as you express it) by the church in general, is then, by the laws of Divine order, as we are expressly taught, to be introduced into the office by an orderly form of inauguration ; and we are taught distinctly also what that form is, viz., " imposition of hands," which represents or corresponds to communication (See Divine Love and Wisdom, 220 ; A. C. 6292). We are also expressly taught, T. C. R. 146, that certain gifts and aids attend that inauguration and are imparted with it from the Lord, as illustration, &c. Now, the way I understand this somewh.at difficult point, is thus : not that a man can be made a minister, or become fitted for the office, solely by this inauguration — by no means ; but simply that one already in general fitted by the proper talents from the Lord, education, &c., has his fit ness completed or perfected by the influx that attends orderly intro duction into the office. Just as baptism or the Holy Supper alone will save uo one, but yet will be a help, and will bring increased spiritual influences to him who does the work of regeneration otherwise — who believes in the Lord and keeps his commandments. The question has been sometimes raised, Who in such cases may perform the right of imposition of hands. May any one, or may only a minister ? I would reply that to my mind it is certainly a function that belongs to the ministerial office ; for we are taught in A. C. 10,799, that priests are appointed for the administration of those things that relate to the divino law and worship. It belongs to that office just as the administration of Baptism and the Holy Supper belongs to it. Not that the Holy Spirit or any power whatever passes from the minister himself to the person ordained (as is the idea of the "Apostolic succession" principle), for all the gifts that attend inauguration into the ministry are communicated doubtless from the Lord alone ; but simply, because, according to the quotation just made, all functions and ceremonies relating to the divine law and worship, belong to the ministerial office, just as civil duties belong to a civil office, &c. ; and order requires that these distinctions should be ob served. THE MINISTRY. 85 But here it is to be noticed, that the mere performing of the cere mony of ordination by a minister, and his appointing another to the office ofthe ministry (which are sometimes confounded), are two per fectly distinct things, and have no connection with each other what ever. It has already been shown, that ministers should be appointed, that is, chosen or approved of, by the church at large : the minister simply performs the ceremony upon those thus appointed : — ^just as it is not for a minister to say who shall be baptized or who shall partake of the Holy Supper ; he simply administers the ordinance to those who present themselves or are presented. A minister, indeed, should have his voice or his vote in the appointment, like every other member of the Convention. The judgment of the ministers present at the Con vention will, indeed, naturally be consulted on an occasion of this kind. Since they have iu some respects a peculiar fitness for judging ofthe candidate's intellectual and educational qualifications, and there fore s.ich applications might with propriety be referred to them for their farther opinion ; still, however, the decision will be with the whole body of members. Tou will observe that my remarks, thus far, have been directed to this point, or these points, viz. : that there is in tho church a distinct office of the ministry ; that there is and should be a distinct body of individuals who fill that office ; that these should be appointed, ap proved of, or recognized by the Church at large, or a body that repre sents it ; that when so appointed, they should be inaugurated into the office by an orderly form, which should be performed by the hands of a mimster, the effect of which inauguration has also been touched upon. Thus my object has been to show that, as the writings teach , there is and should be a regular ministry in and for the New Church. And I have dwelt upon this, because there seem to be floating doubts in some minds in regard to it, or at least loose ideas concerning it. Now, there is another topic of interest, which is quite distinct from this, and should not be confounded with it, viz. : the question of lay preaching ; that is, whether (admitting that there is a regular ministry, &c.) it is still allowable for laymen, or persons not ministers, to teach and preach the doctrines of the Church, when they seem to have the ability and inclination to do so. This, as before said, is a distinct question. And it is one, I confess, of difficulty. It is certain that the writings teach (in A- C. 6822) that preaching, or the public teach ing of truth, belongs to the ministerial office, and that there is danger arising from an indiscriminate exercise of this function. And, proba bly, when the church becomes fully and wisely established, this order of things can and will be strictly observed. But in the present incipient state of the Church, where there are few regular ministers, where there is much 1 o be done, and so few to do it ; when it is diffi cult in many places to support a minister in the sole uses of his office ; and when the reception of the now truth kindles a desire to make it known to others. I do not know whether it would be wise or neces sary to put too close a restriction on the efforts of individual members 86 THE MINIS IRY. in this respect. I do not perceive that any serious harm could arise (and perhaps some good might) from an individual, not a minister, giving an occasional lecture, or course of lectures, on the doctrines, when so disposed and when desired by those who may wish to be in structed. At the same time I think that it would be the more orderly course — when a layman finds himself led on, from giving an occasional lecture, to the regular delivery of discourses — to obtain the recognition and approbation of his brethren of the church at large, as expressed through their proper organ, the Convention, or any ofthe State Associa tions. This might be expressed in the form of a license, as hitherto common in the church in the United States, which license I regard as simply meaning an expression of opinion on the part of the church in general, that the person so licensed is properly fitted for the duty or use of preaching the doctrines ; not that such a license is supposed to have in it any power of conferring fitness, nor that it means to imply any authoritative forbidding of any one else to open his lips (as some seem to have conceived), but that it is simply a recognition of fitness in the person so licensed. And the asking of such a recognition is orderly and proper, because, as before shown, a public teacher of the doctrines becomes in some degree a representative of the whole Church, and its character ; and the whole church, therefore, has a direct interest in seeing that such teachers are worthy and properly qualified. I think that no one, with such a spirit of humility and self-distrust, as is becoming a teacher of spiritual truth, could object to such a course ; and he would find his hands strengthened by pursuing it — by feeling that he has the publicly expressed approbation of his brethren. Such licentiate might then be regarded as a candidate for the ministry, and as preparing himself to be admitted into it in an orderly manner, when circumstances permitted, and a proper opportunity offered. This is the way, my dear sir, in which the subject of lay preaching presents itself, after much reflection to my mind. And it seems to me a course which would put no unnecessary restriction on individual freedom, and yet would tend to preserve due order. Tou observe the points are two : first, there is no objection to any receiver of the doc trines, who feels so disposed, giving an occasional lecture, or course of lectures ;. but, secondly, that if he finds himself led into a regular and habitual course of public teaching, or preaching, that then it would be orderly that he, or his friends for him, should make application to tho Convention or State Association, for their approbation expressed in the form of a license, which there is no fear would be refused to any one truly worthy, both as to ability and moral character. In regard, however, to the administration of the ordinances of Bap tism and the Holy Supper by laymen, or those not in the office of the ministry (a question which has also been occasionally agitated), I must express tho opinion that it seems to me quite contrary to due order and unwarrantable. These are duties properly and strictly be longing to the office of the ministry or priesthood, as may be seen from a reference to A. C. 10,799, where it is declared that " priests are ap- THE MINISTRY. 87 pointed for the administration of those things that relate to the Divine law and worship." It is a case quite different from that of publicly teaching or preaching the doctrines. Every man who has the know ledge of truth will naturally have a wish to express his thoughts in regard to it, either privately to one or a few, or publicly to many ; so that every receiver of truth is naturally, in some degree, a teacher or communicator of it to others. But to perform a religious ceremony, to administer a sacred and solemn ordinance of the church, is altoge ther another thing. No one does this by nature ; he must go out of his way to do it ; it is an extraordinary not an ordinary thing. And in doing it, he is entering upon functions that belong to a distinct office, established in the church both on earth and in heaven, for the express purpose of performing such holy administrations. Neither is there the necessity for it that there may be for the other. The teach ing of truth is a work which has to be widely carried on, and conti nually kept up, for the enlightenment and salvation of mankind ; many hands must be incessantly engaged in it. But the administration of the ordinances of Baptism and the Holy Supper, is only an occasional thing, that may without much inconvenience or injury be deferred till such time as the services of an authorized minister of the church can be obtained. These, my dear sir, are some of the thoughts which have presented themselves to my mind on the subject of the ministry in the New Church. If you think the publication of them will be of any service I have no objection to it. I remain, dear sir, truly. Tour brother in the Lord, T. 0. Prescott. Glasgow, March, 1850. As the above article or argument by oiir transatlantic brother presents what may probably with justice be re garded as the prevalent view of the Ministry obtaining in the E"ew Church, and as it differs very materially from our own, we shall embrace the opportunity to enlarge a little upon the general subject. The particular replies which, under other circumstances, we should perhaps offer to the several points made in Mr. Prescott's communication, we shall leave our readers to educe for themselves from the scope of our remarks. As a whole, the theme is one of vast extent and complex relations, and it will be almost inevitable that we fail, in some point or bther, to do full justice to the argument. We may leave our positions open to an interrogation which, because unanswered. 88 THE MINISTRY. may appear on a cursoiy glance unanswerable. But our fundamental grounds will claim the chief attention ; and if these are sound, the minor matters of detail will readily right themselves in the reader's mind. A correct idea of the Ministry in the Lord's New Church cannot be formed apart from a perception of the true genius and ends of that Church in contradistinc tion from those of the Old Church, as practically con ceived and acted on, against which it virtually arrays itself in nearly every particular. The individual man in the Old Church is held in abeyance ; in the New he is brought forward and elevated. Every man of the Church is a church itself in the least form. Freedom and rationality are his grand characteristics, and for any man to wave the exercise of these is to surrender his most distinctive prerogatives. Each individual must see truth for himself, and order his life according to it, or he can have no alaim to discipleship in the IsTew Jerusalem. Still, as there are states of instruction in the progress of regeneration, so there is a corresponding office of teach ing, and one whicli grows in an orderly way out of the nature of the case. It is the normal product of the ex igencies of men's states, and is primarily referable to the law of charity, which dictates that one who has more - of good and truth should impart of his abundance to him that has less ; and it is not to be questioned that Swedenborg, for the most part, treats the subject of min istry under the head of charity, of which it is one pro minent department. Exciting good and imparting truth is spiritually feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, as every one knows who has himself received any adequate measure of this species of benefaction. Action of this nature towards its appropriate objects is the very law of the regenerate life. It requires not that a man should be called by official designation to exercise the functions of neighborly love. Such an universal duty cannot be exclusively confined to any distinct class or caste. This will be more evident if we look at the primitive THE MINISTRY. 89 formation of a society of the New Church, or of any Church. A community of this kind is one of an entirely voluntary character, composed of individuals drawn together from interior affinities and for a common end. They propose to .themselves the instituting of divine worship, and the mutual edification of each other. They agree to walk together in the ordinances of the Lord's house, and somewhat of a mutual covenant is implied in the union. Their relation to each other is more than that of mere aggregation. It involves the idea of organization. There is, in the first place, a community of spirit, of interest, of aims, operating as an attractive force to draw them together, and then there is a kind of spiritual crystallization, which brings them into an oi-- ganized form. It is wholly immaterial in what manner the associative infiuence first begins to operate. It may be from preaching, or it may be from reading. But the right of Christian believers thus to come together, and to organize themselves into a society, is a primary and indefeasible right, derived from the Lord himself, and ratified in the explicit declaration, " Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." This is the charter of heaven under which any number of Christians is as fully authorized to form themselves as a banking company among men in the business world is at liberty to avail itself of the general law to that effect. For the exercise of this right they are not dependent upon any other society, or upon any clergyman. They are at full liberty to form them selves into such a fraternity in obedience to the Lord's will, and with a view to secure its appropriate ends. At the same time we admit that if they can conveniently enjoy the presence and concurrence of their brethren in the faith, or that of an acknowledged clergyman on such an occasion, it is well ; only let it be understood that all such persons are present as helpers and not as authorizers of their proceedings. To these they are amply compe tent in themselves, being authorized from the highest possible source ; and it may sometimes be important, for 9 90 THE MINISTRY. the sake of a more emphatic assertion of Christian liberty, to decline any other co-operation on the part of laity or clergy from abroad, than that of their brotherly sympa thies and good wishes. Supposing, then, such a society ofthe New Church to be duly formed, it is obvious that the performance of use, bearing upon the general interests of the Lord's kingdom, is the great end which they are ever to have in view. But as use is governed by quality'-, their first and paramount aim is to be, to render themselves, ac cording to the laws of divine order, of such a quality as shall enable them to achieve the largest amount of good, each to the other, and'all to each ; beside what they are enabled to render to the world at large. The action of such a society is a kind of secretion of spiritual use, just as the secretion of an organ in the human body tends to the conservation and well being of the whole. And as every particle of every organ contributes its share in the elaborating process, so is each individual in such a society to furnish his respective quota of influence to the perfection of the whole. In this respect they all stand upon an equal footing. In the common aim of the whole every member has an equal interest. The humblest dis ciple has as much at stake as the highest and most dis tinguished. His soul is of as much importance, his comfort and prosperity in spiritual things as much an object of Divine and angelic care, as that of his other wise more favored brother, and he in like manner is under equal obligation to study in his place and relations the best good of the entire body. All this, be it observed, lies upon the society from its very inception, and prior to the appointment of any one or more individuals to what is termed the clerical or ministerial office ; for in the nature of the case, the particular church or society must be prior to its ministers, just as any civil society or government is prior to its officers. In this primitive state of things every one is virtually and potentially a minister, preacher, or priest, because every one is a church in the least form. Nor do we see any adequate THE MINISTRY. 91 reason why this prerogative should be considered as ever alienable from its rightful subjects. The exercise of it may be waved to a greater or less degree under peculiar circumstances, as when the superior gifts of one, in any particular department, may supersede for a time those of another; but so far as the principle is concerned, we hold it undeniable that everj' man of the church, from the necessity of things, is potentially a minister. And in this matter it is important to hold fast to first principles, for it is here that usurpation generally makes its entrance, by falsifying or sophisticating some fundamental truth, and making it, thus transformed, the basis of a system of tyrannous domination and oj^pression. But it will be asked, Is there no such thing as a dis tinct function of teaching or preaching in the New Church % Can anything be more obvious than the recog nition of such a function, both in the Word and in the writings ofthe Church ? Aud if there is to be teaching, must there not be teachers ? Does not a function imply functionaries, or men discharging what Mr. Prescott terms " a distinct office and use ?" If all are teachers, where are the taught? If all are leaders, where are the led ? To this we reply^, that diversity of uses in the Lord's spiritual body does not necessarily create diversity of grades in those who perform such uses. We acknow ledge at once the necessity of teaching and of teachers in the Church ; but we deny that this fact lays a founda tion for that radical distinction oi clergy and ZaiY^/ which has obtained currency throughout Christendom, and which has opened a Pandora's box of evils and mischiefs to the church of the past. The New Church of the present and the future is not a church in representatives, but in realities. The substantial things which the priest hood represented are now enjoyed by the general body composing the New Jerusalem, and being diffused throughout the whole of that body, they cannot be ap propriated or monopolized by any one class. New Church societies on earth are now to form themselves more and more on the model of the societies of the New 92 THE MINISTRY'. Church in the heavens, and with these there is no preach ing priesthood. There is indeed a priesthood, but it is composed of the whole celestial kingdom, and the men of that kingdom never preach. There are also preach ers in the heavens ; but as they are not priests, being of the spiritual kingdom, so they are not constituted preach ers by a self-perpetuating order, but receive their aj)- pointment directly from the Lord, and that too, as we may reasonably infer, by the operation and influx of his Spirit flowing into their minds, and generating both the love and the ability for the use which they are thence called to perform. Their gifts and endowments are per ceived by the society to be adapted to their exigencies, and they receive and acknowledge them in this relation. They do not confer any power upon them ; they do not, strictly speaking, appoint them ; they simply acknowl edge them as qualified, and thereby designated by the Lord himself to officiate in this capacity in the perform ance of a use which their states render requisite. Such individuals fall into the centre, instead of the circumfer ence, as a matter of course, and in an orderly state of things it is just as natural that their peculiar province should be recognized and acknowledged as that the cor poreal system at large should acknowledge the all-per vading and sustaining action of the heart. But we see nothing in all this that necessarily constitutes them a permanently distinct class, invested with any kind of rule or authority other than that which emanates from the truths they communicate. They are to the whole society what a particular organ is to the whole human body. To the eye, for instance, pertains the function of seeing, but it cannot see apart from the body to which it belongs. So with the ear, the nose, the tongue. They all have their several uses in the bodily economy, but they are not on this account in any manner distinct from the body. So in like manner the use or function of teaching or preaching in the societies of the New Church does not constitute a distinct grade or ord.er in such societies, discriminated from the mass as the clergy are THE MINISTRY. 93 now supposed to be discriminated from the laity — a dis tinction equivalent to a discrete degree. We are well aware how difficult it will be for many of our readers to rest in our conclusion, that there may be a distinction in use which does not amount to a distinc tion in office, or rather in official order or caste. Nor are we sure that we can make our idea any more intel ligible by expansion or illustration. If it does not strike the mind with somewhat of an intuitive perception, it will not probably be apprehended after pages of elaborate exposition. We would say, however, that by the distinct order or office of the clergy in the church, we mean an order which perpetuates itself by some special form of ordination or inauguration, wherein the body of the church, or the laity, as they are termed, have no share. That such an order of men, whether called priests, cler gymen, or ministers, was designed to exist in the New Church is what we venture to deny ; while at the same time we freely admit and strenuously maintain that there is a function of teaching which is to be discharged by those who have the requisite qualifications therefor. If these two propositions are deemed inconsistent with and destructive of each other, so it must be. In our view they are not. The function of teaching in a wider sense, or of preach ing or proclaiming the gospel as an evangelist or mis sionary to the world at large, wo would place on the broad ground of a general right of all men to utter and enforce by argument such sentiments as they may enter tain on any subject whethv-r secular or sacred. Especially, if no exceptions are taken to the sentiments themselves, there can be do just exceptions taken to the most free g,nd unreserved expression of them by their holders. This open and free declaration of opinion is the more legitimate import of the word preach, which is derived from a root expressive of the office of a public crier, a proclaimer, or herald of tidings whether good or bad. When the tidings are good it is gospel, another name for the good news,^ar eminence, of the kingdom of heaven, 9* 94: THE MINISTRY. and we would ask how much ecclesiastical authority one requires to empower him to declare the glad tidings of the Lord's second advent, especially when we learn that every one to whom the message comes is to be an echo to its gracious burden ; "And the Spirit and the Bride say. Come. And let him that heareth say. Come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Is not this a sufficient commission ? The origin, then, we contend, of the ministry in the New Church is in the exigencies of the society. The office is necessarily created by the spiritual demands of the members. Certain gifts are in requisition, and the possession of the gifts, together with the genuine love of the use, is the warrant for their exercise. The divine infiux is into the use, and the thing is orderly of course. The true ministerial function is therefore intrinsically^ prior to all ordination administered by man, for we are now in quest of the manner in which the very first min ister becomes such. We are endeavoring to re-mount to the primo-jjrimitive source of a New Church ministry. We have seen that it is merely one form of that complex of uses which pertains to a society qf New Church Christians. It is a use of serving rather than of ruling. A minister is a servant, find not a lord or master ; this is the very meaning of the term. But tlie service ofthe church is multiform, and so is the ministry. As every member has a service to perform, so he has a ministry to discharge, and nothing would be more pernicious than to regard the employment of a teaching minister as car rying with it a supersedeas to all other forms of spiritual service. But here we can easily foresee that the claims of oi^der will be urged. Is it not opening the door to confusion and every evil work to concede such license on the score of preaching or teaching ? Will it not be a grievous infraction of order and a serious periling of the best interests of the Church if the seal of sanctity be taken off from the clerical office, and the current distinction between clergy and laity virtually done away ? As the THE MINISTRY. 95 office is a public office and the good name and well- being of the church is at stake, should there not be an express authority conferred before any one assumes to himself the responsibility of the function ? Does not the church need protection against the inroads of false teachers and unworthy representatives ? Our answer to this vrill suggest itself from the tenor of what goes before. The question fairly arises, if our premises are sound, where the authority sought resides. As the office of teaching grows directly out of the wants of a society^, and its authority lies in its use, the existence of a min istry cannot depend upon an antecedent ordaining clergy any more than an effect can re-act and re-produce its cause. The ministry of a society ante-dates that of an order of clergy pertaining to the church at large, grant ing for the present that such an order may exist. If the view now presented be still thought to be preg nant with evil results, it behoves us to look well to the remedies proposed and see whether they may not, in the long run, involve greater evils than those they are in tended to cure or prevent. This they will surely do if they conflict with genuine order and virtually deny first principles of truth or freedom. It is not unusual to hear it said that persons not duly inducted should not be allowed to officiate in the ministry. But who is author ized to prevent them, and whence came the power ? What are the credentials shown for it ? Is not every man at liberty to utter his sentiments on any subject that he deems of moment to his fellow-men, and even if those sentiments should be intrinsically erroneous or mis chievous, are not the evils incident to a restraining power greater than any that could flow from the most unlimited freedom of speech ? So we sometimes hear men talk about certain portions of the human race not being fit for civil freedom. But whence arose the right of one portion of mankind to judge for another on this score ? Does not God create all men free ? How has it hap pened that one class of men deems itself entitled to sit in judgment on the capacity of another to enjoy 96 THE MINISTRY. the birthright with which the Creator endowed them ? And how can they restrict this right without injustice and oppression ? We do not of course say that all men are equally prepared to use civil freedom without abusing it, but we do say that this fact does not annul the original right, and that the evils of usurped coercion are greater in the final issue than those of self asserted liberty'. So in the matter before us. We know of no authority, no tribunal, which is empowered to restrain the exercise of any man's freedom in the proclamation of what he regards as truths of the most solemn import. If such a prompting proceed from the working of genuine neigh borly love it will act in wisdom and will be acknow ledged by those endowed with sj^iritual perception, for wisdom is justified of her children. .If the voice of the shepherd is heard in such a man, the sheep will turn towards him, but not otherwise, for thej^ do not know the voice of a stranger. But men are as free in the matter of hearing as of speaking. No one can be com pelled to hear what he does not wish to hear, or what, upon hearing once, he does not wish to hear again. If an individual assuming to be of the New Church faith preaches a doctrine at variance with her truths, there is no remedy but in the sounder views which it may en counter in the minds of the hearers, and in the rectifica tions of time and Providence. In the end truth will eliminate and vindicate itself from the perversions of error, and though the injury done in the mean time in the name of the New Church is to be regretted, yet the violent suppression of an inborn right would be still more to be deplored. On the whole, therefore, the evils resulting by possibility from this source do not strike us as being so formidable as might appear to a slight refiec- tion. Human prudence is prone to multiply the fancied safeguards of truth, when in fact it is most effectually panoplied by its own inherent might. The foregoing train of remark does, if we mistake not,. develope somewhat of the nature and design of the New Church ministry. It is not an office of ruling, except so THE MINISTRY. 97 far as truth itself is of a ruling nature when presented to the mind. It is simply one form of the multifarious uses which are requisite to the building up of the church in the goods and truths of the Lord's kingdom, and one too, as we conceive, which was never intended to be made so completely paramount to every other use as it has come to be in the Christian world at large. It was never designed to be erected into an institution which should stand complete by itself as a virtual hierarchy. That such has been the case we attribute to the subtle working, in all deceivableness of unrighteousness, ofthe love of dominion which has never faund a more congenial abode than in the bosom of the clergy\ This spirit will never lack logic to justify its usurpations, and its proton pseudos, its fundamental falsity will ever be found to lie in asserting a radical distinction between the clergy and the laity, whereas if this sophism is exposed the whole system receives a death-blow and totters to its fall. We would not be understood by this as involving the clergy of the present day in the odium of devising and con sciously upholding a system of sacerdotal dominion. Far from it. We believe them to be conscientious and well-intentioned men, aiming to do the will of God in sincerity, and we impute their error to too readily taking for granted the soundness of opinions and usages which have come down to them by inheritance, and which, from their being so seldom questioned, they have had but little reason to doubt. We cannot for ourselves but indulge the hope that the New Church will eventually develope an entirely new order of things in this respect, and that while everything essential to the ministry will be retained, everything factitious will be discarded. How, otherwise, can any sign of promise be read in the Church's future ? As to an adequate supply of regularly and canonically ordained ministers for the various societies of receivers spread over the length and breadth of the land, who shall re ceive their support from such societies, it surely is now and must be for a long time to come wholly out of the 98 THE MINISTRY'. question. Indeed this is a fact that holds good not of the New Church only, but of all Churches. There lis beginning to be an alarming deficit of clergymen — alarming, I mean, to all those who look upon the clergy, as we do not, as the very bone and bulwark of the church. The prevailing spirit of wordliness, or the higher prizes of other walks of life, is continually thin ning the ranks of the candidates for the ministry — which, however, had probably better be thin if such motives can make them so. Now for ourselves we do not regard this as in itself a circumstance to be deeply dreaded by the New Church, however it may be with others. It will throw her upon her own resources — upon her lay resources. She will be forced to wean herself from that dependence upon the ministry which has been so much the bane of Christendom, and which is not without its ill effects in the New Dispensation. Although it is unquestionable that the man of the New Church is to be built up more by reading than the man of any other church, yet the inveterate prepossessions in regard to the stated ministry are continually tending to relax and paralyze individual action and to beget an uncon scious reliance upon a substituted agency in matters of religion. The latent impression is almost inevitable, that as the minister or pastor is paid for his services, the entire conduct of the religious affairs of the society is de volved upon him, and that the duties of the rest are dis charged by contributing their due proportion to his sup port, and sitting with exemplary regularity under his preaching from Sabbath to Sabbath. As a general fact men are about as willing to pay to be excused, as they are to pray to be excused, from the duties which make somewhat of a stringent demand upon the inner man. One effect of this state of things in the New Church is very disastrous. Scattered over the country in towns and villages are little bands of receivers who have become such by reading. And as they are too weak to support a pastor, so they are prone to regard themselves as too weak to keep up worship or even to form them- THE MINISTRY. 99 selves into societies. They therefore remain in an isolated state, making little or no united effort to promote their spiritual weal, but waiting for the Lord to increase their numbers and with their numbers their means. Conse quently everything for the present languishes, though they may, by private reading, keep up a faint life of goodness and truth in their own souls, and walk unim- peachably in the outer man. But why should they not meet in little clubs for reading and conference, and thus form the germs of future societies ? The writings of the .Church are a never failing fund of edification, and there is usually some one or more individuals in these circles, of intelligence and ability, and well qualified to take the lead and to communicate instruction. Why do not such receivers avail themselves of their inalienable privilege ? Why do they not at least combine their resources and furnish themselves with the writings of the New Church, and with an abundance of collateral works for general distribution ? Alas, we fear that the grand let and hindrance on this score is to be found in the exorbitant views entertained of the ministry as a kind of sine qua non as much to the being as the well-being of the Church. They have, from traditional teachings, taken up the idea that a settled and salaried preacher is an indispensable element in every such body, and that there can be no such thing as a lay circumference without a clerical centre. Now we do not hesitate to say that the sooner this idea is got rid of the better. If every truly good man is a church in the least form, any number of re ceivers associated according to the laws of the Lord's kingdom is no less a church in a larger form, and compe tent to the performance of all the appropriate uses of such a body. That it is possible in such circumstances for self-complacent and aspiring spirits, " loving to have the pre-eminence," to thrust themselves forward to the dis paragement of worthier men, must indeed be admitted. But the true remedy for this is the cultivation of the true spirit of the Church, which is a spirit of modesty, of self distrust, of retiring humility, while at the same 100 THE MINISTRY. time'jt is a spirit that shrinks not from any plainly en joined duty or service of use. Contingent evils ought not to be allowed to bear down and frustrate divinely instituted goods. " It is not always those," says Mr. Prescott, " who think themselves qualified and who have a desire to preach, who are qualified. It is often not a spiritual love of use that prompts such desire, but some times a mere love of display, or a high opinion of one's own intelligence, or the desire of distinction which is at the bottom." Granted, but what then ? Are there not those who have a true love of use, and who are not prompted by the corrupt motives here recited ; and shall they be precluded from a sphere of useful action in the Lord's church, because others may prostitute that service to the ends of vain glory ? Is it, moreover, just to in sinuate of such men who are drawn to this province of use by interior promptings of pure quality, that they are self-appointed if they enter upon it with the full concur rence of their brethren without passing through the pre scribed church forms of clerical inauguration, which perhaps they could not do without compromising some of the clearest and most sacred convictions of their own minds ? We. do not forget, in all this, that Mr. Prescott has cited chapter and verse, as it were, from our great authority on this head to which he will challenge assent, unless we are prepared to disregard it altogether. But we are at present prepared neither for the one nor the other. We respect the authority of Swedenborg, but we know nothing of a blind allegiance to the letter of par ticular paragraphs apart from the ruling scope and genius of the system as a whole. In reading the works of Swedenborg we recognize a certain analogy of faith not unlike that which the theologians of the Old Church in.sist upon as a necessary element in the interpretation of the inspired Word. He himself teaches the import ance of referring every thing to first principles, and we could not be faithful to his lessons were we to shrink from applying the test of a rigid logic even to the rela- THE MINISTRY. 101 tion between his own premises and conclusions, and between the parts and the whole. In the matter before us we do not see that we can be mistaken in regard to the leading scope and spirit of the system in the aggre gate, nor, assuming our view of this to be correct, do we see why our inferences therefrom are not altogether legitimate and fair. Consequently if certain passages niay be cited wliich seem, from the letter, to lead to different results, we do not feel required at once to abandon our previous ground, but will rather hold our judgment in abeyance and wait till farther light has shown how apparent discrepancies may be reconciled. It is certain that compared with the prominence which the ministry holds in the present economy of the New Church, very little is said about it by our author. He has no chapter in the " True Christian religion" devoted to that subject, nor does he anywhere treat of the church as an organized visible polity. Why is this if indeed these are matters of such vital moment to the welfare of the Lord's kingdom on earth as is to be inferred from the general estimate in which they have been held ? For ourselves we do not hesitate to infer from it that the very genius of the New Church is anti-clerical, and that it is destined to work a complete revolution in the minds of its members in this respect. We cannot resist the conviction that the existing order of things in the New Dispensation, which has doubtless derived its origin from the Old, has tended greatly to impede individual regeneration, by delegating the oversight of the interests of tha soul to a consecrated order of men, instead of each one being taught to consider them as entrusted to his own keeping. The effect has been to segregate the con cerns of religion from the ordinary routine of life, and to give rise to a spurious pietism which virtually ignores a life of charity and use. The church and the world have been distinctly marked ofl' and arrayed against each other as two antagonist kingdoms, instead of vigor ous efforts being made to break down all artificial bar riers between the two, and to infuse the true and genuine 10 102 THE MINISTRY. life of the church into the world, — the complexion to which things must come at last. But we must, perforce, bring our remarks to a close at the point we have reached, although conscious of leaving a multitude of closely-related topics altogether untouched. Future occasions may perhaps warrant more extended discussion. For the present we would simply add, that we should deem it injurious if a revolutionary character were to be charged upon the vein of our remarks. We do not propound our sentiments on the subject before us with a view to urge any sudden or violent change in the existing order of things, but simply to ' ^icit truth, which will not fail to be adequately operative on honest minds when once clearly established. The enunciation of sound principles is always seasonable, and it is not un frequently the case that the soundness cannot be tested apart from the enunciation. Let this be our apology or our exj)lanation in the present instance. We have be lieved, therefore have we spoken. THE NEW JERUSALEM MAGAZINE AND THE NEAV CHURCH MINISTRY. (N. C. Repo.5., Ang. 1850.] We have already advertised our readers of the appear ance, in the May ISTo. of the New Jerusalem Magazine, of a somewhat caustic criticism on our Eemarks upon Mr. Prescott's Letter. The Letter of Mr. P. is trans ferred entire with much approbation, but our appended Kemarks have evidently greatly disturbed the serenity of the writer, whose initials, C. P., indicate the Editor, and filled him with alarm as to the probable con sequences of the spread of sentiments so pernicious. That they should be entertained by any one in the church is indeed, as he lets us know, to be regretted, but seeing they are entertained, it is perhaps best that they come forth to the light and make themselves known. It is better that the mental impostliume should break and discharge itself, though it occasion a bad odor, than that it should rankle and fester Avithin and out of reach. Though the sentiments are not likely, from their contra vening the express authority of Swedenborg, and the intuitions of his disciples, to prevail to any great ex tent, yet " as they are put forth by one who has of late taken so prominent a post as a defender and disseminator of New Church truth and doctrine, we feel bound to take the earliest opportunity to enter our protest against them, as opposed to the teachings of Swedenborg, and disor derly and injurious in their tendency and infiuence." To say nothing of the insinuated charge of assumption in taking what he terms " a prominent post as a defender and disseminator of New Church truth and doctrine," — which would probably have been a less offence had we applied at the proper ecclesiastical college for our diploma 104 THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. — it must be admitted that the characterization of our strictures is not of a very soothing tone, and that of the two styles of rhetoric, the ad concilianduTn and the ad invidiam, the writer manifests a decided preference for the latter. As to the implied presumption and arrogance which have marked our humble efforts to " defend and disseminate" the truths of the New Dispensation, if our critic will sjjecify the exact point of our criminality on this score, and designate the appropriate penalty to which we ought to submit, we will promise at least to take the matter into consideration, and if we can convict ourselves of having done or of still doing wrong, we will enter our humble confession to that effect. As to the outrage upon Swedenborg and the asserted disorder and injuriousness of our sentiments, we cannot feel greatly moved so long as we fail to perceive the truth of the allegation. Meantime we would suggest, by way of inquiry, whether the higher interests of the New Church would not be as much promoted by a tone less invidious and bitter, when speaking of the labors of those of whose motives charity would dictate a favorable con struction on the whole. In following the thread of our reviewer's censures we can but barely glance at the more prominent points ad verted to, and in which he has assailed the main positions of our article. Yet without extended quotations and elaborate arguments it is difficult to do justice to our views or to countervail the effect of a certain plausive sphere that diffuses itself around the paragraphs of the reply. But something may be urged ^e?' contra. '' In running through Professor Bush's remarks, one of the first things which strikes the reader is, their constantly disparaging tone in regard to the ministry ;— not the clergy of the present day, whom he specially excepts, as ' conscientious and well-intentioned men,' but the institution itself. The distinction between the clergy and the laity, is spoken of as a falsity and a sophism, and as having ' opened a Pan dora's box of evils and mischief's to the Church of the Past.' We speak of this as one of the first things to strike the reader, because it is so entirely different from anything to be found in the writings of Swedenborg. Indeed, one can hardly avoid asking whether he is THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. 105 reallj^ perusing the production of a professed receiver of the heavenly doctrines, or that of some of those self-styled reformers of the day, who attribute all evils to the mere relations and circumstances of society, without tracing them, as Swedenborg always does, to their true source, in the loves of self and of the world." — P. 169. The writer here manages to work himself into a sur prise which is itself not a little surprising when the ob ject of our Remarks is taken into view. What was that object? Not the disparagement of the ministry in the abstract, but simply to show that certain views enter tained of the ministry — certain theories relative to the ministry as a distinct aud self-perpetuating order — ^were incorrect. In this light, therefore, aud in this alone do we speak disparagingly of the ministry, i. e. as an insti tution which, in its present form, is a perversiou of true order — an opinion for which we give our reasons, such as they are. Is there anything in this which should move the critic's special wonder ? So far from its being " one of the flrst things which strikes the reader" that we speak of the distinction between the clergy and the laity as a falsity and a sophism, it is about the only thing that will strike him at all, as this is the express and avowed drift of the Remarks from beginning to end. This C. R. would have us believe to be very surprising, " because so entirely different from anything to be found in the writings of Swedenborg." Our censor must have read Swedenborg with very different eyes from ours, if he has not found him sjieaking disparagingly of things which he regarded as false and as perversions of order, and this is the only ])o'ml in which there is any ground for the comparison. "We are speaking of the New Church, in which we deny that the peculiar distinction so long maintained hitherto between clergy and laity is to be recognized. We deny that this is fairly to be made out from Swedenborg himself, or, in other words, that our position in this matter is not accordant with his, inasmuch as we contend that he does not assert such a distinction, and that the principles of the New Church are inconsistent with it. What then does the writer 10* 106 THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. mean by saying that our train of remark is " so entirely different from anything to be found in the writings of Swedenborg?" If he means that there is nothing in Swedenborg to sustain our main position, he takes for granted the very point in debate, and arrays against us the example of our author for the purpose of creating odium. If he refers to the general tone or style in which Swedenborg speaks of things that he considers false or fallacious, it has certainly very little to do with the ar gument, besides that we are not conscious of anything more than a design to enunciate clearly and emphatically what we believe to be true, and of this mode of discus sion we have ourselves found a great niany specimens in Swedenborg. As to not tracing the evils in question " to their true source in the loves of self and the world," it is precisely to this origin that we refer them. The besetting sin of the clergy iu all the ages of the past has been pre-eminently " the love of ruling from the love of self" " But we almost hear our readers exclaim, what is the meaning of all this ? Is not Professor Bufh aware that Swedenborg not only re cognizes the distinction between clergy aud laity, but always treats it with the most perfect respect, f^nd even declares the priesthood to be necessary to the preservation of order iu the world, without which [i. e. order, not the priesthood] the human race must perish? [H. D. 311, 314.")— P. 169. We must of course l,e egregiously ignorant of the whole subject as treated by Swedenborg not to be aware of what is said in the iamous chapter of the Heavenly Doctrines on Ecclesiastical and Civil Government. But we view the scope of this chapter in a very different light from that in which C. R. looks upon it. We regard it as simply a declaration of the great principles of order by which the Divine Providence governs the afiairs of the world in its two leading departments, secular and sa cred. We see in it no special allusion to the New Church — no formula of civil or ecclesiastical regimen to be adopted in that Church — but a comprehensive statement of the economy by which the Divine Wisdom has ever THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. 107 hitherto kept the world in order, and still continues to do so. It is a summary of that grand system of agencies by which the various evil promptings of our fallen nature are controlled, and an expose ofthe principles by which those ought to be governed who are called to exercise the functions of office in each of these important spheres of action. If a priesthood is a necessary appendage to the New Church it is incredible that it should not have been explicitly stated in the True Christian Religion or in some other parts of the writings. The spirit of the following passage is at any rate decidedly against it. " All things that were done in that Church (the Jewish) were turned in Heaven into corresponding representa tives. But after the coming of the Lord, when external rites were abolished, and thus representatives ceased, then such things were no longer changed in Heaven into corresponding representatives ; for when man be comes internal, and is instructed concerning things internal, then external things are as nothing to him, for he then knows what is holy, viz. that charity is so, and faith thence : from these his externals are then viewed, namely, as to how much of charity and faith towards the Lord there is in the externals : Wherefore, since the Lord''s coming, man is not considered in heaven with respect to things external, but to things internal, if any one be considered in respect to things external, it is hence that he has simplicity, and in simplicity has inno cence and charity, which are in things external, or iu his external worship, from the Lord, whilst the man himself is ignorant of it."— J.. C- 1003. The writer goes on to make a somewhat extended quotation from our remarks in which we state our rea sons for believing the New Church to be anti-clerical iu its genius, notwithstanding that a contrary inference might be drawn from the letter of occasional paragraphs, and upon this extract he comments as follows : " Here, if we understand the language, it is admitted that Sweden borg does expressly teach that the New Church should have a min- 108 THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. istry, as indeed it must be impossible for any one to deny. But it is assumed in the same breath that what he thus taught in ' the letter of particular paragraphs,' is opposed to ' the ruling scope and genius of the system as a whole.' In plain English the meaning is, that Sweden borg did not understand the scope and genius of the system which he was raised up and commissioned of the Lord to expound for the instruc tion and benefit of mankind ; and consequently that his writings already need the application of Prof. Bush's ' rigid logic,' to prune them of such antiquated and injurious excrescences as the idea of a regular and established ministry, and to show them up in the beauty of their true ' anti-clerical' character. In this matter it seems that Prof Bush has made up his mind so clearly that he ' does not see that he can be mistaken.' There is only one alternative, and that is, that Swedenborg must be mistaken. He has indeed the modesty to speak of waiting for further light, and in the mean time of holding his judg ment in abeyance. But we think it plain that he has made a mistake here, as it is not his own judgment, but Swedenborg's doctrine con cerning tho ministry, which he holds in abeyance." — P. 170. We cannot well conceive anything more unfair and invidious than the complexion here given to our senti ments. In the first place it is not admitted in the pas sage quoted that " Swedenborg expressly teaches that the New Church should have a ministry," nor had the writer any authority for asserting it. We simply say that " we do not forget, in all this, that Mr. Prescott has cited chapter and verse, as it were, from our great authority on this head, to which he will challenge assent, unless we are prepared to disregard it altogether. But we are at present prepared neither for the one nor the other. We respect the authority of Swedenborg, but we know nothing of a blind allegiance to the letter of par ticular paragraphs apart from the ruling scope and genius of the system as a whole. He himself teaches the im portance of referring everything to first principles, and we could not be faithful to his lessons were we to shrink from applying the test of a rigid logic even to the relation between his own premises and conclusions, and between the parts and the whole." It will be seen that it is only by violence that he extorts from these words the admission that Swedenborg '-'¦expressly teaches" what is affirmed. We say that Mr. Prescott has referred to certain portions THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. 109 of the writings which he understands as sustaining his views, in which, while, for the sake of the argument, we do not deny, yet neither do we admit, that the purport of the letter favors his idea. Still we maintain that a logical consistency of interpretation requires another meaning to be put upon the language, for which we pro ceed to assign our reasons at some length. This the re viewer tortures into the ill-natured paragraph above, in which we are represented as virtually charging Sweden borg with being ignorant of his own system, with being mistaken, and his writings needing explication by means of our " rigid logic." If these are the weapons of New Church warfare, we have sadly mistaken its genius. Is it so very difficult for C. R. to perceive that what we mainly deny is not a function of minist7-y in the New Church, but an office or order of clergy, for while we hold to the one we repudiate the other ; and yet C. R. would fain bring us under the odium of rejecting both. This is very much the character of the article throughout. Whatever advantage it may appear to gain is the result of thus arraying our positions in alleged antagonism with Swedenborg, and disregarding the real distinctions which we are careful to make. Thus, for instance : — " The more we have studied Swedenborg, the more fully have we been convinced not only that he was commissioned by the Lord to announce the doctrines of the New Church, and to teach and explain them in his writings, but that he was most wonderfully fitted and prepared for this high office, not merely by being imbued with their true spirit, but also with a sound wisdom and judgment in regard to all necessary details." And what of all this? Who denies it? What have we said that makes this vindication necessary? The passage has no relevancy in this connexion, except so far as it involves the implication that we had advanced something inconsistent with it, which is not the case. There is no dispute as to the endowments or authority of Swedenborg . The only question is as to his meaning. This C. E. evi dently regards as so plain as to admit but of one possible 110 THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. construction, and that whoever dissents from that rejects his authority. We dissent notwithstanding. " But let us look for a moment at some of the points of Prof. Bush's remarks, without however undertaking to examine them very fully. So far as we can gather up his chief argument against the distinction between the clergy and the laity is this. Every one is virtually and potentially a minister, preacher, or priest, because every one is a church in the least form. As, therefore, all are ministers, the distinction between clergy and laity is obliterated ; because there is no longer any laity left, from which the clergy can be distinguished. But what sort of rigid logic is this ? Would it not be equally just to begin with assuming, that because every one is a church in the least form, there fore every one is a layman, aud cut off the distinction by thus showing that there are no clergy from which the laity can be distinguished ? And the same course of reasoning would equally show that there is no distinction between kings and their subjects, magistrates and private citizens. Because every one is a church in the least form, or an indi vidual man, therefore every one is a king and there are no subjects, or every one is a subject and there are no kings ; every one is a magis trate and there are no private citizens, or every one is a private citi zen and there are no magistrates, and so on throughout all the relations of society. We are not conscious that we have in the least misrepre sented Professor Bush on this point, incredible as it may seem that he should take such ground. And though it has in part the appearance of a logical or syllogistic statement aud inference, we regard it simply as a piece of sheer sophistry."— Pp. 171, 172. Our critic has not misrepresented us, neither has he confuted us, notwithstanding its being so "incredible that we should take such ground," and notwithstanding his magisterial verdict upon it as " simply a piece of sheer sophistry." Does not C. R. admit that Sweden borg again and again declares that "- every man of the church is a church in the least form ?" If he does, with what face does he venture to charge us with rejecting the authority of our illumined teacher ? And why does he virtually involve this proposition in the same odium with the inference which we profess to draw logically from it, viz., that if every man of the church is a church in the least form, then every constituent element of the church in a larger form exists also in the church in its least form, consequently if the priesthood, ministry, or clergy is an essential principle in the one it is also in the THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. Ill other? If this inference is unsound or fallacious, why not prove it to be so, still vindicating the fundamental truth from the gross perversion to which we have sub jected it ? But from his treatment of our position no one would know but that he rejected the premise as well as the conclusion, for he speaks of the whole without dis crimination as " a piece of sheer sophistry." But let us look at his " rigid logic." " Would it not be equally just to begin with assuming, that because every one is a . church in the least form, therefore every one is a layman, and cut off the distinction by thus showing that there are no clergy from which the laity^ can be distinguished ? And so in like manner as to kings and subjects, magis trates and private citizens." But C. R. is in the same category with ourselves as to the admission that all good men are spiritually both priests and kings, for this is ex pressly declared in the Word, while it is not said that they are laity and subjects. It is in vain for him to deny this and still claim to be a believer in the Word, or a re ceiver of Swedenborg's exposition. The only cjuestion that then remains is, as to the relation which this spirit ual dignity bears, in the New Church dispensation, to the outward or ultimate office so denominated. Is there any relation between them ? In other words, is there any other than a spiritual priesthood recognized in the New Church ? If so, what is it, and where have we an account of it ? Let us not be answered by saying that the internal of the New Church is constituted by the priesthood or clergy, and the external by the laity, for this is an assertion that equally lacks proof, although it holds good in the Old Church. What we are authorized to demand is, the evidence that in the New Jerusalem any priesthood or clergy in ultimates is recognized by our author. We do not find it ; and therefore we say that every man of the church, being a church in the least form, and being actually a priest in spiritual dignity, is potentially a priest in natural function as to all those services of instruction, admonition and guidance, which may be requisite for the edification of the Lord's body 112 THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. on the earth. This is the true ministry of the true church. It is not the priesthood teaching the laity, for such a distinction is necessarily done away by their being all priests ; but it is one portion of the spiritual priest hood teaching another, while they all stand upon the same plane. How can it be otherwise, if all are priests in the sense affirmed? If the question is alleged to have relation to another kind of priests, we ask again who they are, and what is the authority for them ? How futile then the objection urged above, that we may just as well maintain that from the doing away of all distinc tion between the clergy and laity every man is a layman and there is no clergy. This is an objection that could never be urged but upon ground which we expressly deny, to wit, that such a distinction as C. R. holds between clergy and laity exists. From the express declaration of the Word that spiritual priesthood embraces all, there can of course be no laity in the corresponding sense. So also in regard to the royalty. If all are kings they can not be at the same time subjects. Consequently the charge of " sheer sophistry" may as well be made to shift sides. But the beauty of our critic's logic looms up to sight in the next paragraph, where he unequivocally endorses the very view of the subject which we have given, and which, at the same time, he is so earnest in condemning. " Now let us look for a moment at the doctrine on this same point as taught by Swedenborg, which we briefly state thus. Every one is a church in the least form. But men are created with different capaci ties and tastes, fitting them for the performance of different uses ; and when several are united together, who are mutually adapted to each other, they form a society or social man, or church iu a larger form. This society corresponds with the respective individuals of whom it is composed. That is, it is spiritually in the human form, and the indi viduals of whom it is composed actually belong to the respective parts of that form to which their several uses correspond. There is, there fore, among them all the variety of function, of quality, of rank, or - grade, in flue, of distinction, which is to be found in different parts of the human body."— P. 172. We should confess to a great mistake in our anticipa- THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. 113 tions M^ere any sensible and candid man to peruse our article and pronounce one item of it at variance with the view here set forth as that which Swedenborg teaches. We most fully agree that the form of a New Church society is the human form, and that there is among the members " all the variety of function, of quality, of rank, or grade, in fine, of distinction, which is to be found in difi'erent parts of the human body." But in order that this_ language may be made to sustain C. R.'s view ofthe subject some one member or organ ought more speci fically to represent the clergy than the rest of the body ? To which of these, in C. R.'s opinion, does the priesthood correspond ? Pie is very careful to affirm the analogy in general, and equally so not to define it in particular. Why not specify the items of coincidence ? We are perfectly ready to admit that the function of teaching supposes in those who exercise it a more internal state than distinguishes those who are subjects of it, and that this ministry is properly represented by the more central and dominant organs of the body^ But as these are in the body and a part of it, so the teaching ministry is a art of the spiritual bod}', and not on a plane above it. "ut he goes on. " Neither can there be the least doubt that the general scope and spirit of this doctrine recognize in society every variety of distinction which exists between the different organs of the human body, with every variety of grade which intervenes between the head and the feet. And yet Prof. Bush appears to see nothing of the kind, and actually asserts ' that diversity of uses in the Lord's spiritual body does not necessarily create diversity of grades in those who perform such uses.' To this absurdity is he fairly driven by his logic, which infers that because all members of the social body are men, therefore there is no distinction between them ; and would equally prove, that because the head and feet are parts of the same individual man, therefore the one is not above the other, but that they are both on precisely the same level, and the human system is as destitute of organization as a block or a stone."— Pp. 172, 173. We should be somewhat interested to see an attempt made to misrepresent our real sentiments more effec tually than is here done. From the tenor of our remarks 11 114 THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. nothing could be more obvious than that by •' diversity of grades," we mean that kind of grade which separates one class in the church from another by a discrete degree of dignity aud pre-eminence. Such a grade we under stand to be occupied by tbe clergy as contradistinguished from the laity. Such a grade we do not recognize as existing in the New Church, nor do we consider the analogy on which C. R. insists as requiring the admission of that kind of distinction. The variety of functions and uses in the natural body, we freely concede to have their analogues in the spiritual, but we are wholly at a loss to discover with which of the corporeal organs or powers the clerical caste corresponds. As our critic proceeds in his strictures ho ascribes to us the confusion which he finds in his own ideas in regard to a distinction in use which does not amount to a dis tinction in office. " Our own view of the case is, that the attempt which Prof Bush has made to explain this difficulty is not a successful one ; and we think, more over, that the more it should be extended, the less suc cessful it would be. For he very carefully leaves out of the case one essential element, and the farther the argu ment is pursued the greater is the confusion that ensues. This element is the religious or sacred or priestly order." That is to say, that inasmuch as we deny the priestly caste in the New Church in contradistinction from the laic, we therefore exclude that element in the church which is properly to be deemed " religious or sacred," as these epi thets he makes synonymous with " priestly." How far this comes short of denying to the profane laity any thing " religious or sacred" and ascribing it wholly to the clergy perhaps other eyes may see more clearly than our own. As to the truth of the allegation as bearing upon our views, we have only to say, that if there is a " religious or sacred element" in the church or in the universe we recognize it in the function performed by the teaching ministry. Is there no possibility for a reli gious element to come into play in the New Church but through the medium of just such a priesthood as C. E. THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. 115 contends for ? But again, " He concedes something to the necessity of having teachers in the church, but he makes no concession in favor of a ministry or priesthood, or of anything strictly clerical." The reader is of course aware by this time of the true sense in which our lan guage is to be understood, and of the genuine grounds on which our positions rest. We do make concession in favor of a ministry, a function of teaching, but not of a priesthood or clergy, because the ideas conveyed by these latter terms are to our apprehension entirely dif ferent. If it be not so, it behoved our opponent to show, in an argumentative way, the fallacy of the distinction ; but instead pf this he confronts us afresh with his quota tions from the famous chapter on civil and ecclesiastical government, around which as a centre the clerical argu ment always swings, and to which it is apparently tethered. " We hardly need remind our readers how different this teaching is from the teaching of Swedenborg, who says that there are two things which ought to be in order among men, — the things of heaven and the things ofthe world, or ecclesiastical things and civil things. That this order cannot be maintained without governors, and that governors over ecclesiastical things are called priests, and their office the priest hood. Also that dignity and honor ought to be paid to priests, on account of the sanctity of their office. {H. D. 311-318.) But, accord ing to Prof. Bush, the sooner the seal of this sanctity is removed the better."— P. 174. Here, as usual, a special turn or twist is given to our words, making them to utter as offensive a sentiment as possible. Our language is as follows : — " But here we can easily foresee that the claims of order will be urged. Is it not opening the door to confusion and every evil work to concede such license on the score of preaching or teaching? Will it not be a grievous infraction of order and a serious perilling of the best interests of the Church if the seal of sanctity be taken off from the clerical office, and the current distinction between clergy and laity virtually done away ?" The sanctity of which we speak is the sanctity attaching in the estimation of the Christian world to an order of men called the clergy 116 THE NEAV CHURCH MINISTRY. or priesthood, which we deny to exist in the New Church. All that we should say is, that that peculiar form of sanc tity which has been supposed to pertain to the clergy of the Christian Church is not mentally carried over to the true ministry of the New Church, which is constructed after an entirely different model. To this also as being the Lord's ordinance we believe a genuine sanctity belongs, from which we would not derogate in the least. Yet C. R. asserts that " the teachers wliich our theory contemplates are not properly^ ministers ; for their office, if indeed any official station is really left them, is entirely divested of all idea of sanctity." Why so ? If they are of divine appointment, or in accordanca with divine order, why should they not have all requisite sanctity? Every thing has its sanctity according to the degree and quality of its use, and the measure oi^ the divine influx into it. What motive could we have for impairing the reverence for this kind of sanctity ? As to the citation from Swedenborg, which our critic would fain offset against us, we perceive in it no special appropriateness to the present case, as we, like him, are disposed to let the Old Church remain in possession of all the sanctity that its votaries may think fit to ascribe to it, only we object to predicating the same kind of sanctity of the teachers of the New Church, because we do not look upon them as constituting the same order. As to Swedenborg himself, he would naturally in this relation speak of the sanctity of the priestly office, because speak ing of what was reputed holy in the existing order of things in the world. The same remark applies to the extracts from the " Doctrine of Charity," which evidently inculcate the exercise of that principle in the various relations of life, as society is at present constituted. For this reason it prescribes, among other things, the duties incumbent upon soldiers and generals. Can such a state of things exist in the New Jerusalem ? Will wars and fightings find place under that dispensation of love and peace ? Not but that the men of that dispensation, in its earlier THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. 117 stages, may be brought into contact with the " horrid trade " of arms, but can its genius harmonize with the spirit of carnage and conquest ? Can the institutions of war spring up as a natural growth under the benignant and heavenly auspices of the New Jerusalem ? It is obvious then that Swedenborg prescribes the duties of charity in a reference to a state of things which will pass away as the Holy City descends more and more fully into the minds of men. On this ground we interpret all such passages as those so often quoted in defence of cleri cal prerogative. They are dicta not strictly j^redicable of the New Churchy but of the Old. This construction will doubtless be regarded as the crown of all our here sies — an imputation to which we shall submit with the best grace we can command. We had said, in the course of our Remarks, that among the contrasted characteristics of the Old and the New Church was this, that in the Old Church the indi vidual man was held in abeyance, while in the New he was brought forward and elevated — that freedom and rationality were especially his prerogatives, the exercise of which he was never to wave — that each individual must see truth for himself and order his life according to it. In this we had reference to what Swedenborg more than once says relative to the mass of men in Christen dom, that they are prone to take up their religious senti ments from tradition and education, thinking blindly with the multitude, and making it merely a thing ofthe memory, whereas, the very genius of the New Church requires that every man should have a clear and rational perception of truth for himself and order his life accord ingly. But upon this score our article is again taken seriously to task. " Now we know of no authority whatever for the distinction here stated, in regard to the individual man being kept in abeyance in the Old Church, and elevated in the New. Indeed, if there is any differ ence of the kind to be taken account of, it seems to us clearly to be the opposite of what is here declared. For freedom and rationality are the essential elements of man in all churches, and it was equally 11* 118 THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. necessary in the Old Church as in the New, that every one should see truth for himself, and order his life according to it. There is given to the New Church, a higher degree of freedom and rationality than was enjoyed by the Old. But this has no tendency to bring forward and elevate the individual, as compared with the social man. For the free dom and rationality of the New Church is the freedom and rationality of heaven, as its doctrines are the doctrines of heaven. And if we contemplate for a moment the state of a heavenly society in this respect, we shall see that the perfection of the individual does not consist in his being elevated as an individual, or apart from the society of which he is a member, but in the closeness of his union with the other members. As the society becomes more and more perfect, which is effected by the addition of new members, who come into their respective places, as it were in the interstices of the body not yet filled out, there is no ten dency to make themselves or others more prominent as individuals, but to cause all to be more united as one man." — P. 175. Here, the whole force of the reasoning rests upon the assumption that the more full and perfect development of the individual man is inconsistent with his relation to the integrity of the social man as formed after the model of the heavenly societies. In this respect he has not the happiness to agree with Swedenborg, who, after saying that " a one does not exist without a form, but that the form itself makes a one," goes on to remark : — " Thattheform makes a one so much the more perfectly in proportion as the things which enter into it are distinct from each other, and never- theless^ united. This is comprehended v/ith difficulty unless the under standing be elevated, because there is an appearance that form cannot make a one except when there is a similarity in the things which constitute it. _ On this subject I have frequently conversed with the angels, who said that this is an arcanum, which the wise among them could perceive clearly, but the less wise obscurely : that nevertheless it is a truth, that a form is so much the more perfect in proportion as the things which constitute it are distinct from each other, but still united in a particular manner. They confirmed this by reference to the societies in the heavens, which, taken together, constitute the form of heaven ; aud to the angels of each society, of which it may be af firmed that, the more every individual has a distinct identity of character, m which he freely acts, and thus loves his associates from himself or from his own affection, the more perfect is the form of the society. They also illustrated it by the marriage of goodness and truth, which, the more distinctly they are two, can more perfectly form a one • and, in like manner, by love and wisdom ; showing that what is indis- THE NEW CHURCH MINISTRY. 119 tinct is confused, whence results all imperfection of form." — Divine Providence, n. 4, 5. Of course our reviewer will say that he does not ques tion this in the least ; that it is precisely his own view of the matter, and that he objects to our view because it does not harmonize with this. But wherein ? Why are we represented as going counter to great principles taught in the New Church, when the points of contra riety are not distinctly shown ? To this he has nothing to reply, but that " the perfection of the individual does not consist in his being elevated as an individual, or apart from the society in which he is a -member, but in the closeness ofhis union with the other members." So also in the succeeding paragraph, after affirming that there is one particular part in the society which every member fills alone and exclusively, he adds, " this is far from making him prominent, or bringing him forward as an individual , or causing him to be independent of others." Here are conditions annexed which our positions know nothing of, and for which, of course, they are not respon sible. We have advanced no theory of individualism which conflicts with the closest relation to the collective man. On the principle above quoted from Swedenborg, that the perfection of the whole depends upon the degree of distinctness with which the parts i^ronounce them selves, the two things are perfectly consistent with each other. Our friend has therefore launched out into a train of discourse very sound and edifying in itself, but very far from having any special relation to aught that we have affirmed in our remarks. G. B. NEW CHURCH ORCtANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. BY RBV. A. E. FOKD. [N. CBopo?., July, I860.] It is designed, in the present number, to advocate a General Conven tion, and to advocate it from the proper constitution of the ministry. But, as the rightful existence of the ministry as a class distinct from the laity has been called in question, this point must first engage our atten tion. It is a wearisome task to be laying foundations, over again, but when that which has been settled, both in the flrst Christian Church and the New Church of the Lord, is treated as the error of ages, we have no choice left us.(o) A ministry distinct from the laity is plainly to be read in the New Testament ; it existed iu the times immediately succeeding the Apos tolic age, and was almost universal through every period of the first Christian Church to its close. (6) It is plain that the Lord during His life in the world brought the Apostles into a peculiar relation with Himself, one whereby they were prepared to become teachers of Chris tian doctrine, — that He commissioned them, at his ascension, to preach and baptize — that, after His ascension, they actually fulfilled this office — -that they exercised the power of ordering the external affairs of the Churches — that, among other things, they appointed " Presby ters " who were a teaching class — and that " Deacons " are mentioned in the Epistles in a way strongly favoring the idea that they had the same function with presbyters in a subordidate degree. That Poly carp, the disciple of John, was the " Bishop " of Smyrna, that Clemens (probably the companion of Paul) was the " Bishop " of Rome, and that Irenaeus was the " Bishop " of Lyons, are among the undisputed facts of ecclesiastical history — and whatever sense may be attributed to the word " Bishop," it bore, undeniably, at that period, the sense of a permanent functionary in teaching and admistering the things of public worship. That there was a clergy, distinct from the laity, in three orders, called bishops, priests, and deacons, is as certain, in the year 1850, as that there is a clergy, consisting of these grades, with the superaddition of Archbishops, Cardinals, and a Pope, in the Roman Catholic Church of the present day. Now, even setting aside the Scriptural part of this argument, the position which Eusebius has taken, and in which the esteemed Editor of the Repository has joined him, has against it the heavy presumption, that a thing so enormous (in their account) as the distinction of clergy and laity should have originated in very contact with the Apostles. The universal consent of the first Christian Church also lies against it— and if it should be NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 121 alleged, that that Church, its great abuses in the matter considered, is but a poor commentary on the principle contended for, it is to be re membered that the abolition of the clerical order has a yet more dis creditable patronage, it having found favor only with some of the en thusiastic sects of that church — its very worst portions, (f) With this passing notice of the Scriptural argument confirmed by ecclesiastical history, let us turn our attention to some of the respective grounds on which the distinction between the clergy and the laity may be made to rest. It rests on use as its true, and indeed, sacred foundation. If we look at the very nature of a Christian Church, we shall perceive, that it implies instruction. (rf) Men are gathered together iuto a church, in order that in it aud through it, as an instrument, they may be prepared for heaven. This preparation is to be made, in the first instance, by acquiring truths, and then by living according to them. We cannot have these truths by intuition, like the men of the most ancient Church. Nor by revelation, like the men of other earths in the universe. It remains, therefore, that we learn them by the external way. This learning, in accordance with the law of the Divine Providence, that men must be ministers of use to one another, demands a medium of in struction — and, in accordance with another of its laws, the law that we must be led by delights — this instruction will fall into the hands of those who have a love for it in the will, a capacity for it in the intel lect, and qualiflcations for it by study. Thus far, it may be said that there is no dispute between the two sides of the present question, those who advocate a perfect spontaneity in the things of the clerical func tion not supposing that all would avail themselves of their inherent right to be priests. It will be well, therefore, to turn to points on which there is a diversity of views. 'Three of these may be noticed. 1. The first is, authorized introduction into the ministry as contra distinguished from self -introduction. Shall the ministerial function be something left in the midst, as it were, and open to every one who chooses to occupy it ? May every one, making himself the judge of his own qualificatious, say : " I feel myself called to this use : I have an inherent right to it. I admit no power on earth to abridge me in the exercise of this right," and thereupon proceed to preach and ad minister the sacraments. It seems to some that, if this question is set tled in the affirmative in the church, an admirable state of things, as regards liberty, will result, and that usurpation and dissension will have their very roots pulled up among us. But cool reason has its doubts on this matter. If the gates of the ministry are thus thrown open to all, with no guard at them on the part of the general Church, it is morally certain that many will enter who will be defective in capacity, in learning, and in civil and moral character, (e) The clerical function will be taken up from evil as well as good delight ; it will be used as the mere means of livelihood — as a make-shift, while the occupant pre pares for the medical or some other profession ; it will be a kind of sewer to catch those whom school-teaching, and mercantile life, and 122 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. the legal profession, have purged out of their ranks. But let us look only at the effect of this arrangement on the intelligence of the minis try. The majority of its members, it will be safe to say, will be with out skill in the original tongues in which the Word is written, and without the general cultivation which is essential to respectability. They will be making constant mistakes, which the more intelligent of their hearers can see through, and exposing ignorance at which the more light-minded among them will laugh. The consequences will be unhappy, for respect is an element in the feeling with which a teacher must be regarded, no matter what his subject, if he is to teach with effect. We have examples of both, a learned and an unlearned minis try, before our eyes, of religious bodies where the teachers and the taught pride themselves upon their scorn of intellectual preparation for the ministry, and of others in which learning is prized and cultivated. We can make ourselves, in point of respectability, like the oue or the other, at our option, and we shall be making our choice, in deciding whether we will recognize any one who come.g to us offering to take charge of our spiritual instruction, on the simple ground that he feels au impulse so to do, or whether we will require of him, besides, that the Church, as well as himself, shall have judged of his fitness, and stamped his vocation with her impress. (/) The other side replies to this argument, of course, that each congre gation, or society, can best judge of what, in a minister, suits it. This is true ; but societies can use this right either in a selfish manner, or, looking to the general good. A society cannot " live to itself," any more than a man ; all its actions, usages, and measures go abroad in effects on the general church. If it recognizes an unfit man as a minis ter, it so far discredits the ministry in general, compromises the res pectability of the New Church, obliges neighboring societies to put up with his lack of capacity, vulgarity, or immorality, if these are his traits, or else, at the risk of exciting bad feeling, to refuse his services. It is for this, among other reasons, that societies should combine to gether and determine by rule, what qualifications are desirable for en trance into the ministry in general, while they reserve to themselves the right of selecting, from this general body, those adapted for themselves in particular. Such a step, if it involves any sacrifice of rights on the part of societies, would be a sacrifice from a noble motive. Who shall forbid this pervading of mutual regard ? The opposite argument steps in and binds societies to selfishness, bidding them look at their minis ter, each, as one in whom it alone is interested, when, in fact, the mi nistry is a public office, and the peace and respectability of the church at large is involved by every one of their recognitions. Moreover, as regards this matter of recognition, no society can get along with recog nizing only the minister or ministers that officiate to it. The indispen sable commerce of societies among themselves requires that they recog nize one another's ministers. Shall this recognition or non-recognition of other ministers be made by special acts, or by a general arrangement among themselves ? Manifestly the latter is the preferable way.(g) NEW CHUKCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 123 A remark about this whole matter of deducing ecclesiastical order from the rights of societies will be in place here. It is a selflsh spirit that is thus inculcated upon societies. Swedenborg, somewhere in the Spiritual Diary, has made the observation that jurists have erred in deducing the maxims of municipal and international law from the rights of the parties, and that they should have drawn them from mu tual charity. This observation, so striking in its flrst application, is equally so as regards the mutual intercourse of societies. 2. The second point of difference v.ill be the ordination cf the clergy by the clergy. One looks in vain over the articles of Eusebius and the remarks of the Editor for an allowance of ordination. It lays in their very path, but they have got by it without notice. One is compelled to feel that, if they recognize it at all, it is with a most suspicious and backward acknowledgment. However this may be, of ordination by the clergy there is the following plain rejection : " By the distinct order or office ofthe clergy in the church, we mean an order which perpetuates itself hy some special form of ordination or inauguration, wherein the body of the church or the laity, as they are termed, have no share." That such an order of men, whether called priests, clergymen, or minis ters, was designed to exist in the New Church is what we venture to deny. That to the contrary of this, ordination, by some hands, is to be used in the New Church, we have the explicit authority of Sweden borg. Canons of N. C. iv. 7 : " That the clergy, because they are to teach doctrine from the Word concerning the Lord, and concerning redemption and salvation from Him, are to be inaugurated by the covenant (or promise, sponseonem) of the Holy Spirit mjrf by their re presentation of its translation ; but that it is received by the clergy ac cording to the faith of their life." Now, shall the right thus explicitly recognized by Swedenborg be administered by the clergy, that is, by those who have already been inaugurated, or by those who have not?(/i) All congruity and propriety say, by the former. It would be a strange spectacle, at an inauguration, that those inaugurated for the very pur pose of conducting public religious services, should be bid to stand aside, while some one uninaugurated, unused to the work, and probably unskillful in it, should read the necessary services, make the prayers, and perform the representative of translation. The only reason pleaded for this indecorum in oue point of view, and in another, this violation of the very principle of ordination by giving a function allied to teaching to the uninaugurated, is, that certain false doctrines have been associated with this rite in the Old Church. But this reason be comes of no weight, the moment it is known that these doctrines are held in abhorrence, not more by the laity than by the clergy, among us. (A) But if the clergy ordain the clergy, does this make them a " self-per petuating order ? " To a certain extent it would, perhaps, if they should assume this authority ; but, if it is conferred upon them, by the rules of the Church, which, as has been shown, have their origin with the laity, then any one can see that it does not. Neither are they a self-perpe- 124: NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. tuating order," unless, besides the power of ordaining, they have the power of appointing themselves— but, in this essential article, which is well distinguished in Mr. Prescott's letter from ordination, they are now associated with the laity — and no one wishes it to be otherwise, (z) 3. The third point of difference will lie in the position, that thefunc- tioiis of teaching publicly and administering ihe Sacraments shoidd be appropriated to the clergy. {]) My friendly opponents would have these functions free to all, without ordination. One of them says : " It is not unusual to hear it said, that persons, not duly inducted should not be allowed to officiate in the ministry. i?ut who is authorized to pre vent them, and whence came the power ? " But, that certain functions should be restricted to the clergy, is plain from the nature of ordina tion, (i) It is originally an inauguration, that is, a badge of entrance — sometimes into a society, sometimes into a college (then called ma triculation) , sometimes into an office in the state — and, in every case, the entrance is into something peculiar and apjiropriated, not into some thing that was open to the person entering before the ceremony, and which he is to hold in common with all who are without this badge afterwards. Ordination would be the merest nullity, regarded as an inauguration, if the recipient might have officiated without it himself, and all others can enter into his functions without it also. Would such an empty trifle be recognized among the canons of the New Church ? Inauguration is entrance into something segregated or secluded ; but this would be entrance, so to speak, into all " ou.t o' doors."(^) The point argued for is plain, also, from the nature ofthe office — a term which Swedenborg applies to the priesthood. We can imagine a state of the Church in which clerical functions should be exercised indiscri minately by all, and there would be no difficulty in showing, in the words of the Editor, that, in this case, there would be " a distinction in use which does not amount to a distinction in office, or rather in official order and caste." But he is really called upon to show that, when the clerical functions have been segregated, as it were, and constituted into an " office," that office, and consequently they who fill it, are not set apart by limits. There would be no " office " of the Priesthood, in the state of things advocated by Eusebius, any more than in a community, where every man acted, as occasion called, as arbiter in disputes, there would be " the office" of a Judge. No office exists until functions, that were before in common, are gathered up and limited to a certain individual or class. Now he who fills the office of the priesthood is a clerical officer, as he who fills an office in the administration of justice, is a judicial officer — and this fact as much implies, that, for reasons of public utility, his functions shall not lie open to the first occupant who chooses to make himself such, as that those of the Judge should not. If this parallel is denied, it must be shown that what is manifestly a law of divine order, in civil government, is a law of tyranny in ecclesiastical government. As regards " the authority to prevent " all from acting as ministers indiscriminately, which is demanded in the extract given above, it lies NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 125 in the right of every society to recognize its religious teachers (which, of course, involves the right to refuse recognition to the unfit), which is contended for on the other side. It is this very right, exercised by societies in combination. (m) By what authority, it might be asked, imitating the question above quoted, shall any one say to societies : " Tou may accept or refuse whom you please for your religious teachers, provided you act separately, but you shall not combine into a body, and prescribe, in the body you then form, whom you will and will not accept."(n) The above arguments for appropriating the functions of the Ministry to the clerical order are confirmed by Swedenborg. How could the point under consideration, so far as teaching is concerned, be asserted more luminously than in the words which follow : — " Good may be in sinuated into another by every one in the country, but not truth, ex cept by those who are teaching ministers. If others insinuate truth, it gives birth to heresies, and the Church is disturbed and rent asunder." —A- C. 6822.(0) That the same is true of the sacraments appears from the Canons, C. 4, 8, 9, — " That the Divine (Proceeding"), which is understood by the Holy Spirit, proceeds from the Lord through the clergy to the laity, by preachings, according to the reception ofthe doctrine of truth thence derived. And also by the sacrament ofthe Holy Supper accord ing to repentance before receiving it." The heading up of the whole chapter is as follows : " That hence [the Divine proceeding passes] through men to men, and, in the Church, chiefly from the clergy to the laity,"(p) To these arguments for the clergy as a distinct class might be added one from the innumerable collisions and irregularities by which the Church, if it were so unwise as to make the experiment urged upon it, would be " taught as with thorns " that law is not tyranny, nor the un bounded liberty of individuals, freedom. Such confusions can be easily foreseen, and while the fear of them is upon us, we cannot feel re-assured by such assertions, as those contained in the following words : " As to heretical or incompetent ministers, and the proper mode of dealing with them, this, in an orderly state of the Church, will take care of itself." There are remarkable analogies between the " no human priesthood," sentiments and the "no human government" ones. The assertion of both, that no disorders will result from the attempt to realize theories, is very confident, but very destitute of rational guarantees. (5) The above positions might be supported by more numerous citations from the writings of the Church ; but space does not admit of this, and scarcely of the single observation which we will here subjoin, with re gard to the construction of such passages. There are two ways of deal ing with them. In the first, we collect them together and submit them to the view of the mind, not only singly, but as a whole, which they make by combining together. We suffer one to cast light on another. We suffer them to develope and support each other mutually, and then gather the import of each passage according to the general sense of the 12 126 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. whole. In the second way, we take each passage singly, and apply to it an ingenious criticism by which its more obvious meaning is made doubtful, and then judge tho meaning of the whole to be the sum of the senses yielded by this isolating process. When we gather into one view all that Swedenborg has said ou the necessity of " goverment in the Church " as well as in the State, that there must be " governors " in it who are " priests "—what he has said respecting " the clergy and the laity," manifestly distinguishing them, and showing what the for mer must do and not do — respecting their " inauguration " — respecting the danger of heresy when others are allowed to teach — respecting the " honor and dignity " which are to be shown them, and the principles on which they may accept them — and respecting the Trine in which they are to be constituted — and then contemplate such opinions as are drawn from theeie paesages by Eusebius, supported by the Editor ; we cannot help feeling, that, with the most heartfelt reverence for Sweden borg's instructions iu higher matters, they are, in these minor ones, by the isolating process above described, unconsciously engaged in contra dicting their teacher, while they seem to themselves only construing him in a sound sense.(r) The grounds on which that sense of these passages which would strike most as the fair one is eliminated, and another one put in its place, are three — which will now be noticed in succession. 1. Ecclesiastical domination. The adverse argument everywhere goes on the supposition, that the love of dominion piroduced the distinc tion between clergy and laity, and the ordination of the clergy by the clergy. It even asserts one of these to be " the proton pseudos, the fundamental falsity " of the love of dominion. But the assertion is not true, historically ; the clergy as a distinct body, dates itself far back of the rise of that spirit in the Church, (s) These external institutions and forms became hurtful only when the doctrine of the keys, that of absolution, and that of the apostolic succession were added to them. These doctrines were as a hand put forth by the love of dominion, by which it seized upon a legitimate and useful implement, and turned it to most mischievous uses.(t) Do away with those doctrines' — (and surely my friendly opponents will allow that they are held in abhor rence among us) — and the separate existence of the clergy will be like an axe taken from the grasp of a madman, and given to a workman in his right senses, who immediately employs it in building a house. Is it not a little external — to indulge in a friendly retort — to be attribut ing to the merest externals the desolations of the Babylonish spirit ? Had it not been for the doctrines above mentioned, the external consti tution of the Roman Church (which, after all, is a perversion of the original form of the ministry) would have been only a highly inex pedient form of Church government ; it would have embarrassed charity and faith, but could never have changed them into their opposites.(M) 2. The individual man is a Church. Strange that the general prin ciple relied upon for calling Swedenborg's special statements into doubt {Rep. p. 227) should give them a decided support. Carry out NEW CHURCH ( U;G ANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 127 the analogy correctly, and this will be apparent. The man is composed of goods and truths, two perfectly distinct things ; priests correspond, in the collective church, with goods, and the laity consequently with truths, and as goods and truths are distinct, the clergy and laity must be distinct also. If every man in the collective church were a priest, then the individual man could consist of nothing but goods, (ij) On the subject of every man being a priest, the following passage from the Diary, No. 4904, has a bearing : " There were also certain ones [fall ing from heaven] who rejected the priestly function — saying that the priesthood was universal, thus with all." This passage which will be found (with remarks by the Editor) in a former number of the Reposi tory, is reproduced here for the purpose of remarking, that, by obvious implication, " rejecting the priestly function " (or office") is the equiva lent of " saying that the priesthood is universal, and with all." In the general can any one believe that Swedenborg would mention, in this way, an important particular of New Church order, as the priesthood of all is asserted by the other side to he,(iii) 3. Societies are prior to the ministry and establish it. " The minis try of a society antedates that of an order of the clergy pertaining to the Church at large." This argument proves something only by con founding tTie forming stage of the Church as to government, with its mature stage. All things that grow have these two stages, and the order of operation in the last is very different from that which obtains in the first;. Take for example the earth ; its flrst state is that of the mineral kingdom, which kingdom at first receives influx immediately through heaven ; but when the two superior kingdoms are formed, with man at their head, the influx into that kingdom is thenceforth through them. So with the mind of man itself, the influx of good is, at flrst, into the affection of sciences in the external, whereby the rational is formed, but afterwards, so far as the rational is formed, good flows into the affection of sciences through it. It is matter of necessity that the first ordination should be by the laity, but it is vain to rely upon this as proof that it should be so always- If our country had been settled and organized by counties, aud counties had afterwards combined into states, and states into the federal union, would it be thought a valid argument for taking away from the President and the Senate the ap pointment of certain officers, that officers were at flrst appointed by counties ? You cannot govern a 7nan by the laws of embryo life, and you should not make the ohxi-cch, full- grown, conform to the model of '\ti forming stage.(a;) if, by what goes before, it has been sufficiently shown that the cleri cal functions are dictated by use — that none should enter upon them self-inducted — nor without ordination by those personally inaugurated to the same, and that they should be appropriated to the clergy for reasons of public order, it is plain that the clergy and the laity ought to form distinct classes in the New Church. A. E. P. 128 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. REMARKS It is with some reluctance that we extend the space devoted to the preceding article by any subjoined re marks of our own. But as we have some strictures to offer upon the positions of A. E. F., and as they would lose much of their eifect by being presented separate from the matter which occasions them, we embrace the present opportunity to put in our rejoinder. We are conscious of doing this at a great disadvantage from be ing obliged to restrict ourselves on several points to a few sentences, when whole pages would scarcely suffice to do justice to our views. {a) It is doubtless a wearisome task to be laying foun dations over again which will not stay laid, and such will necessarily be the case with every foundation laid by man and not by the Lord himself It is easy to say that such and such things have been " settled," and " set upon their own base," when a stricter inquisition may show that they have been built upon the shifting sand banks of falsity instead of the immovable rock of truth. The mere fact that a particular institution of the church has long held its place unquestioned is no infallible sign that it rests upon a solid basis. It is quite possible that it may be among the old things which are to be dis allowed and pass away before the genius of the ISTew Dispensation. In this case it will be iu vain to say "The bricks are fallen down, but we will build with hewn stones; the sycamore trees are hewn down, but we will change them into cedars." Foundations of all sorts are the very things which New Church principles most sternly interrogate. (5) The evidence on this head drawn from the New Testament and from the writings of the Fathers, is, in our view, of very conflicting character, and of very un equal authority. In the mind of a ISTewchurchman it is of very little consequence to the argument that the dis tinction between clergy and laity " existed in the times NEW OHURCH OROANIZATIOM AND GOVERNMENT 129 immediately succeeding the apostolic age." The leaven of Antichrist began to work even in the life-time of the apostles, and it is not at all wonderful that the clergy, fol lowing in the wake of Diotrephes, should have begun to erect themselves into a separate caste at the early period alluded to. The love of pre-eminence easily grafts itself upon the function of teaching, and the history of the flrst Christian church from the outset is a running commen tary upon the truth of the intimation. The advocates of church power and clerical prerogative are very prone to rest the argument rather on the patristic than the scrip tural basis, and the words of Ignatius, Clemens, Tertul lian, and the rest are, on the Episcopal theory, for in stance, all gold and precious stones, while on the New Church theory they are hay and stubble, dirt and trash. It is the Word of the Lord only and its illumined ex position that determine for us every thing pertaining to the Church, and we have for ourselves sought unto these oracles in vain to flnd an adequate warrant for the past and present order of things ecclesiastic which has pre vailed throughout the Christain world. But upon this head we cannot now enlarge. We are prepared, how ever, to discuss the Scriptural argument whenever it shall be fairly called for. (c) We could hardly have anticipated that an argument, from a New Church pen, in behalf of the distinction be tween clergy and laity, should have been so constructed as to recognize as well founded, the trinal array of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. If such an argument is valid against the denial of the existence of the clergy as a distinct class, why is it not valid in support of such a gradation as an actual feature of the New Church ? We do not see but that according to A. E. F. the same Scrip tural proof which establishes the fact of the distinction, establishes also the duty of its observance ; or, in other words, that the Church is recreant to its Lord if it do not arrange its ministry according to the Episcopal model. In this case we shall content ourselves by turning over our correspondent to the Presbyterians and Indepen- 12* 130 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. dents who have on this head so successfully entered the lists with the Papists and Prelatists. It is a controversy with which the Newchurchman has nothing to do but to stand aloof from it. " That there was a clergy distinct from the laity, in three orders, called bishops, priests, and deacons, is as certain in the year 150, as that there is a clergy consisting of these grades, with the superad dition of Archbishops, Cardinals, and a Pope, in the Koman Catholic Church of the present day." Doubtless ; and the authority for the one is just as good as that for the other ; which is saying as little for either as can well be said. {d) We have expressly declared that we recognize a function of teaching in the New Church. This function rests of course on a foundation of use. But what we maintain is, that the discharge of the function does not necessitate the creation of a distinct order or caste in the Church, exclusively and pre-eminently set apart to it, and forming, as it were, a separate plane above that of the laity. The ability to teach in spiritual things de pends upon the degree of illumination in the teacher, and this again upon the degice to which he is in good and truth. But the being in good and truth is not the prero gative of any one portion of the men of the church, but the duty of all. It is what all are to aim at, and yet as there will always be a diversity of attainment in this res pect, so the function will distribute itself accordingly. The same member who is a teacher to others whose spiritual state is below his, may be at the same time a pupil to others whose spiritual state is above his. The gifts of all, however, are in some way put iu requisition. TEvery one is to edify another as occasion may offer, yet not in a spirit of arrogance or dictation, but in a spirit of humility and selfsubjection. The evil heretofore existing has arisen from erecting an occasional function into a per manent office, aud appropriating the performance of its duties to an exclusive and privileged class. Subtle argu ments are never wanting for such a process, as one party does not object to being excused from onerous duties, and NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 131 the other has an innate latent love of dominion to be gratified. Between both the present order of things has been begotten and obtained establishment in the church. It is doubtless a perverted order, from which there will eventually be a recession, but we do not advocate its in stant abandonment. We are willing to await the result of a gradual change, provided a change shall be actually intended, and it is no more than justice to our sentiments that they should not be charged as so essentially radical and revolutionary in their nature as to demand sudden and violent reforms. On this head it is probable we shall be greatly misapprehended and misrepresented, but as we know ourselves in the matter, we shall abide the issues with calmness. It is not necessary that wrong im pressions should be taken up in regard to our true posi tion. (e) A case is here supposed which amounts to well- nigh a complete caricature of the state of things for which we are contending. No better evidence of a man's utter unfitness for the function in question could be afforded than the spirit which expresses itself in the language above put into the lips of a self-sufficient aspirant to ministry in the Church. No rightly disposed servant of the Lord can enter upon any sphere of use in a spirit of arrogant assumption or with a tone of lofty deflance. The true minister, as the name imports, is one who would fain be tho servant of all, and this is a spirit of modesty and self-distrust, prompting one to withhold rather than protrude his claims to consideration and deference. As to the danger that may hence accrue to the church, from a non-authorized or self-authorized introduction into the ministry, we have only to say that on the true theory, as we apprehend it, of church order, there will be little to be feared on this score, inasmuch as every society will select its own teachers, upon adequate probation, and as the function is unfeed, its labor being purely a labor of love, small indeed will be the inducement for any one to resort to it from any selfish or mercenary motive. On the score of detriment to the church from the probable intrusion of 132 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. unlearned men as teachers, we may admit the force of the objection provided the culture of the intellect is to be regarded as the paramount object of tho Christian min istry. But it would seem that a simple reference to the first principles of the New Church would be sufficient to correct a fallacy like this. If all wisdom is the form of love, and all truth the product of good, the grand deside ratum is the purification of the will and its affections. All desirable mental enlightenment will follow in the train of a regenerated love. Ubi charitas, ibi claritas. The influence necessary to effect this is not that of human learning. The revelations vouchsafed to the New Church teach new lessons respecting the comparative value of the attainments of the "head and of the heart, and leave us in no doubt that the great work of the ministry is to lead to the good of life by a pathway continually illumi nated by the light of the genuine doctrines of the Word. Human learning, as furnishing ampler vessels for the in flow of divine truth and good, is ne^er to be disparaged, but we would fain fortify our own minds against the idea that the true standard of ministerial qualification is a knowledge of the original languages of Scripture or rare acquisitions in science, letters, or art. The kind of abili ty to unfold the spiritual sense of the Word, which re sults from the illustration usually granted to a pure and exemplary life, is of incomparably more use in the min istry than the most signal mastery of the learned tongues. Moderate talents and attainments, coupled with good sense and an enlightened zeal, are usually the best guar antee for usefulness in the service of the Lord's New Church. {f) The surest way for the New Church to attain the respectability which our correspondent covets for her, is to live up to and act fully out her distinguishing princi ples. These are principles of life, and such as make their appeal to every individual of the church ; and if the mass of receivers honor the truths they possess, the church will inevitably be respectable and respected, and her teachers, as a general fact, equally so. " Like peo ple, like priest." NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 133 {g) Every step in a discussion like the present shows how difficult it is to divest the mind of its old concep tions. The strictm-es of A. E. F. recognize all along just such a state of things ecclesiastically as now exists as a field of clerical action. Each society has one minister or pastor, and as he is inducted into the sacred office by the consecrating act of his clerical brethren, he thereby obtains the seal of their sanction and an entree, in conse quence, into the various pulpits in the connexion. In this sense the office is held to be a public one, which ren ders the occupancy of it by fit incumbents a matter of great concern to the general body of the Church. But how is it in the order for which we plead ? There every society has a plurality of teachers according to its exi gencies, and according to the diversity of gifts possessed by its members. The society in Boston, for instance, may serve as an example. We have there listened to . lectures of eminent ability and use delivered from time to time by highly intelligent laymen, who were every way qualified for the work, and to whom the society evi dently gave heed with great delight. We know of noth ing that should prevent a New Church Society from re garding a number of such men as its true ministry, who need nothing more than the acknowledgment of the members to authorize them for the due discharge of all the functions of spiritual teachers and guides. And if acknowledged in this capacity by one society, why should they not be by another, should they perchance visit or sojourn for a time among them ? They are men in good repute, qualified to impart instruction or to kindle affec tion, and prompted by a love of use. Is there any rea son why they should not sustain abroad the same charac ter they do at home ? Yet they would not covet or claim the title of clergymen on this account, for they do not, by exercising this function, constitute a distinct order or Brahminical caste in the Church. They are plain citi zens, gaining their livelihood by their several secular vo cations in life, and giving themselves, as occasion may serve, to the spiritual benefit of their brethren, because 134 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. actuated by the love of the neighbor in one of its purest forms. On the whole we do not perceive that the above objection is a valid one ; we do not acknowledge that the interests of the church at large are any more promoted or protected by the existing arrangements than by those proposed. Indeed, the advantage, if anything, is on the side of the latter as it is supposed that none will be call ed to the exercise of the teaching function but those who have been tried and approved in that department, whereas, in the present order, persons are introduced into the ministry without any previous preparation, other than scholastic, and the various societies are expected to recognize them on the ground of the approbation of their ordainers. (A) Denying, as we do, the legitimate existence in the New Church of the clergy as a permanently distinct class of men, it were scarcely to be expected that we should have much to say of the distinguishing rite which has been regarded as constituting them as such. Butvv'c have no quarrel with ordination as such • it is with its asserted instrumentality in creating a superior order in the Church that we are at variance. It is, therefore, by a misapprehension of our meaning that we are charged with " plainly rejecting ordination by the clergy." What we reject is the clergy ordained as a separate class, and not the ordination itself, except as the basis on which the clerical character rests. We are obviously arguing here against a self-perpetuating order of men, distinct from the laity. Viewed in this relation we of course deny to ordination the virtue usually ascribed to it as producing such an effect, but we do not thereby necessarily repudiate the rite altogether. To disallow it under one aspect is not inconsistent with allowing it un der another. Kightly understood and rightly applied it may have a very intelligible use in the New Dispensa tion. If a society shall deem it proper to signify their acceptance of the labors of their teachers by such a cer emony, very well ; we would not object to it, though we do not perceive it to be indispensable. But our objec- NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 135 tions lie mainly against the interpretations put upon the rite in its relation to a permanent and distinct class. To charge, therefore, that we reject ordination by the clergy, is very little to the point so long as the main question is in regard to the very existence of the order of the clergy as A. E, F. understands it. But upon this point we have little hope that our true position will be justly ap prehended. The proposition that there may be a distinct use of teaching and of spiritual leadership in the church, without, at the same time, its constituting a distinct and self-perpetuating order termed the clergy ia contradis tinction from the laity, is one so complex from its very simplicity, that it will find an exceedingly difficult ad mission into minds pre-occupied with a different idea. Consequently we shall deem ourselves fortunate if we are not represented as denying the use as well as the sep arate office of all ministry in the Church. If so, so be it ; we would define our position more clearly if we could. Our correspondent begins by giving prominence to our alleged rejection of ordination of the clergy by the clergy, which in our argument comes into question solely as a rite by which a distinct order of -caen ¦perpetu ates itself. It is in this relation, or as having this bear ing, that we reject it. We do this on the ground that the means cannot bo legitimate to an end which is illegi timate. Ordination, we hold, is not legitimate as a means of giving perpetuity to the clerical order. In this relation solely do we speak of it in a tone of disappro val. But from this fact it cannot be fairly inferred that we reject it in all other relations. That which is not good for one thing may be good for another ; and so with ordination. The strictures of A. E. F. on this head, as they proceed, gradually shift the point and direct themselves at last against an imaginary position, as if we rejected ordination altogether because we reject it under one particular aspect. Accordingly he wheels round upon us the heavy ordinance of the extract given above, the discovery of which in 1830 among the unpublished papers of Swedenborg caused so much exultation among 136 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. the brethren of the English Conference who then had the subject of the trine in the ministry under review. And what does it prove ? Simply that our author, in his day, recognized the existence of a church and a clergy among whom the communication of the Holy Spirit was signi fied by the imposition of hands. From a somewhat close and protracted examination in reference to this point we are satisfied that numerous passages in the writings of Swedenborg, in which mention is made of the clergy and the priesthood, refer in reality, not to the New Church, but to the old. Thus in H. D. of N. L, 315, " With respect to priests, their duty is to teach men the way to heaven, and likewise to lead them therein. They are to teach them according to the doctrine of their church {sum ecclesim), which is derived from the Word of God." In the English edition of 1841 of the H. D. from which we quote, the reading is " according to the doctrine of the Church." This, we trust, is a typographi cal error, as it is plainly contrary to the original. Whe ther the American edition contains the same reading we cannot say, not having a copy at hand. We can under stand this only as interpreted in conformity with the view now expressed. The spiritual teachers whom he calls priests, in the several departments of the Christian Church, such as the Lutheran, Eeformed, Anglican, &c., are to inculcate the doctrines of their respective creeds, which they all of course regard as drawn from the in spired Word and accordant with it, and to which they are faithfully to adhere in imparting instruction. In the Divine Providence of the Lord, civil and ecclesiastical government are both made to act an important part in that system of infiuences and agencies by which the world is kept in order. The object of the chapter is not, we conceive, to lay down a formal rule of regimen for the church, bxtt to show in what light its members are to regard the existing order of things in the two great de partments of Church and State. This order, as occur ring under the economy of Divine Providence, Sweden borg nowhere disparages, as our Lord did not that of the NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 137 Jewish dispensation in his day, though it was destined ere long to pass away. But we do not learn that our author any where, on that account, adopts or po-escribes this order as designed to be perpetuated in the New Jerusalem. We do not for ourselves find that he dis tinctly recognizes an earthly priesthood as an element in the New Economy, or that any inaugurations are refer red to except such as are spiritual. If there be any such passages we should be glad to have them pointed out. {i) We do not perceive in this a very satisfactory re ply to the objection. The fact that the authority is con ferred instead of being assumed does not militate with our position that the clergy is a " self-perpetuating __ order." They are certainly a constantly-subsisting body, they are distinct from the laity, and they are introduced into the office by each other. Why does not this con stitute a self-perpetuating order ? What more would be requisite to do it ? As to appointment, it avails nothing towards conferring clerical character, on the prevailing theory, apart from ordination. {j) If we see a bugbear in this, it is because we see with optics badly trained. So deeply for a long tract of ages, has clerical prerogative become entrenched in the prejudices and aflections of the Christian world, so com pletely has it moulded their forms of thought, that it is an immense achievement to get out of the magic circle of associations which it conjures around us, and to look upon the subject in the light of the Lord's Word and of man's wisdom. Who thinks oi pxdflic instruction in a church but in connexion with a consecrated edifice, a pul pit sacred to an ordained occupant, and a passively lis tening audience ? But these are mere adventitious ap pendages which have grown by slow degrees around the central institute of worship. In like manner with the sacraments, which have been clothed with a pre-eminent degree of sanctity in order to enhance the official sancti ty of those who administer them. We would not imply by this that they are not to be reverently regarded as of Divine appointment, but we are yet to learn the grounds 13 138 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. on which the administration of the sacraments is to be prohibited to any but those who have passed through the regular sacerdotal routine and received the due credentials at the hands of the due authorities. Qc) That is, if it be granted in the outset that there is a distinct class of men in the church denominated the clergy, and that they are solemnly introduced into that office by the ceremony of ordination, and can derive a title to the performance of these functions in no other way, then it will indeed follow of course that no one can invade the sacred prerogative without the grossest sacri lege. But it might be as well to remember that we deny this asserted effect of ordination, and consequently the results that follow in its train. We adhere immova bly to our position, that the qualification to teach in the church, the love for it as a use, and the acknowledgment of both on the part of a society, authorizes a man to of ficiate '• uuimpeached of usurpation" in that capacity, and that no man or body of men has a right to prevent him. Moreover, as the functional use in question is an important one, if the society are pleased to signify their sense of it by selecting some of their number to express, by imposition of hands, accompanied with prayer, their earnest invocation of blessing in the discharge of it, we see nothing in it that is open to reasonable objection. But in admitting this we do not admit that such a rite so consecrates the recipient as to elevate him to another plane of dignity and sanctity. (Z) We ask ourselves again and again where is the pe culiar difficulty of apprehending the distinction to which we have so often adverted, and which draws the line be tween an occasional or even a stated use and a perma nent office that constitutes its functionaries a separate and sacred order of men. Certain exigencies on the score of instruction in a New Church Society demand the exercise of certain gifts or endowments at certain times. The services requisite are rendered accordingly, just as the teachers in a Sabbath-school perform the du ties which, because they were needed, they have consent- NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 189 ed to assume. But has this the effect of making them a distinct; class of men in tho community ? Are they not, during the week-days, pursuing their fixed occupation like other citizens and perfectly upon a par with them ? Suppose their Sabbath-day employment to be called an " office," still they are properly " officers" no longer than while engaged in it, even though engaged in it statedly and for a term of years. No one ever dreams that they become, in consequence of this function, a distinct order prescriptively invested with the prerogative not only of teaching, but of creating by ordination other teachers. A. E. F. would make the clerical and judicial functions exactly parallel. This would require that the limits of each should be defined with the utmost precision, and that uo one should presume any more to invade the pro vince of the minister than the lawyer or the common citizen does that of the judge. But we ask if this is pos sible? Would A. E. F. undertake to define the precise line which separates the duties of the laity from the prerogatives of the clergy ? May not a layman teach any spiritual truth at all ? If he may teach some, how much? Suppose a warm-hearted Newchurchman in some remote village in Maine or Michigan should be impelled to open his doors on the Sabbath to such of his neighbors as saw fit to attend, and should read, pray, and sing with them, and under the promptings of a full heart should venture to propound his own views of the grand and glorious truths of the New Jerusalem, and urge them upon his audience, by what scale of crimi nality should we measure his offence ? Should we trem ble for fear that the doom of Korah and his companions would come upon him? Should we not fear rather that his own soul would suffer leanness were he to withhold that which would tend to remedy the leanness of the souls of others 1 The fact is, the civil and ecclesiastical spheres are entirelj' diflerent. It is impossible to bring the principles applicable to each into the same category. Every man of the church is potentially a minister or priest, and the development of the fitting endowments. 140 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. together with the consent and acknowledgment of his associates is all that is needed to make him actually so. Assume any more restricted ground and the church has a hierarchy inevitably fixed upon it. {m) All the prevention that may be attempted, short of actual force, amounts simply to non-acknowledgment. A society may refuse to acknowledge as a teacher one who would fain impose himself upon them in that char acter, but they cannot prevent him from preaching to another society who are willing to hear him, nor if ever so many New Church societies combine and veto his preaching could they prevent his officiating beyond the pale of their jurisdiction. The mere fact of several so cieties combining confers no new power of prohibition ; it simply affords the means of a more united expression of opinion on the subject. One who Avas intent upon proclaiming what he deemed to be truth, and whose life challenged investigation, would smile at all the edicts that could be launched against him by Synods or Con ventions. {n) There is nothing to hinder societies from combin ing for purposes of use in advancing the Lord's kingdom, but if they suppose that their coming together and " combining into a body" invests them with an authority of " prescribing" what they had not the power to do be fore, they labor under as great a mistake, as would he who should hold that the whole is more than an aggre gate of all the parts. {o) Nothing is more certain than that these words of our author must receive limitation somewhere. With all his zeal for a sharply defined distinction of grades and functions in the church, A. E. F. would not say that none but a clergyman was ever to insinuate truth into the minds of his fellow-men. He must concede the right in some degree — what is it? In some cases — what are they ? We will abide by his determination. If he main tains that while in the ordinary intercourse of life every man is at liberty to improve the occasions that may oc cur for correcting falsity and imparting truth, but" that NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 141 in the matter of formal instruction in public meetings, for instance, the duty of unfolding and applying the truths of the church should devolve rather upon-lhose who occupy the post of teachers, we have no difficulty in agreeing with him, for we regard such " teaching ministers" or spiritual servants, as a very important ele ment in every society, but we are very far from looking upon them as such a distinct order of men as is now un derstood by the clergy. {p) As we put this in the same category with the for mer extract from the Canons, it will be superfluous to dwell upon it here. We flnd no evidence that Sweden borg speaks either here or elsewhere of any other clergy as such than that which he recognized in the existing church of his day. {g) We have guarded our statement sufficiently to re but the force of this objection, as will appear by italicis ing another clause of the sentence ; — "As to heretical or incompetent ministers and the proper mode of dealing with them, this, in a well-ordered state of the Church, will take care of itself" It is seldom indeed that any reform of moment is effected by itself apart from a re form in the system to which it belongs. We should an ticipate with A. E. F. that disorders and irregularities in abundance would be the consequence of such a change as he deems the legitimate consequence of our theory. It is evident from his coupling together " no human priesthood" with " no human government" that he attri butes to our views a perfectly subversive or destructive tendency without one redeeming element. It is, howev er, well to remind ourselves that the bad consequences Avhich might in the flrst iostance flow from the breaking up of a corrupt state of things iu church or State are not of themselves a sufficient argument against the plea for reform. In the present case the question is as to the ab stract truth of certain principles bearing upon the econo my of the church. If the fundamental positions which we assume are intrinsically sound, the legitimate conse quences can by no possibility be evil. Let that question then be decided. 13* 142 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. {r) We willingly let all this go for what it is worth, leav ing it to our readers to judge how far we differ or how far we agree with the teachings of Swedenborg rightly un derstood. That he has much to say respfecting priests, priesthood, clergy, &c., is readily admitted, but that he predicates them of the New Church is not admitted. Thus aa to imposition of hands, he says, C. L. 396, " Because the hands are the ultimates of man, and his firsts are simultaneously in ultimates, it is that inaugurations into the priesthood are at this day performed by the laying on of hands." But upon this head we cannot now dilate. {s) There is but little prospect of bringing controver sies to a close so long as either of the parties miscon strues the leading position of the other, or puts its own sense on an opponent's terms and then waxes valiant in contending with it. We have nowhere denied that the function of teaching exists and always has existed in the Church, consequently that there are to be teachers. But we deny that these teachers are identical with the clergy of the present day, an order of men which, from the love of dominion, has grafted itself upon that of the teachers aforesaid, and in a thousand forms of usurpation "lorded it over God's heritage." To what does it amount then to say that the clergy, as a distinct body, dates it self far back of the rise of the spirit of domination ? This is a spirit which allows very few things indeed to date back of it. The clergy, in the sense of teachers, or, if you please, of teaching ministers, existed from the origin of Christian .Societies, but the clergy, in the sense of the priesthood, is of far later growth, and is the un doubted offspring of the love of dominion, as any candid man will see who reads father Sarpi's History of the Council of Trent, or Campbell's Lectures on Ecclesiasti cal History. {t) The effect is here, if we mistake not, unwittingly put for the cause and the cause for the effect. The doc trines of absolution, of the power of the keys, and of apostolic succession, were not born till the love of domi nation begot them, nor will they die so long as their fos- NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 143 ter parent the clergy survives to nourish them. The idea of a separate order of clergy subsisting in total disjunc tion from the abuses which have ever accompanied it is, in our view, chimerical. {u) The course of reasoning which our friend pursues throughout his article leans very strongly and naturally to a most lenient and tolerant view of the church of the Papacy, as the arguments by which both systems are sustained have a marked affinity for each other. Indeed, with the abatement or exception which he specifles, we cannot perceive how, upon his ground, the constitution of the Soman Church could have been " highly inexpedi ent." Highly expedient would sound in our ears as the more appropriate epithet. We are often amused at the efforts made to separate the dross and still retain the vir gin gold of Rome. The grand fact, however, still re mains inexpugnable that the sacerdotal heresy is the mother and the munition of the papal apostasy. {v) We must put this down as a singular specimen of hyper-reflnement in the way of confuting an axiomatic principle of the New Church, to wit, that every good man is a church in the least form ; from which, we main tain, it follows that if the priestly function is an essential element of the church, that element exists in every indi vidual of the church. And how is this replied to? " The man is composed of goods and truths, two perfect ly distinct things ; priests correspond, in the collective church, with goods, and the laity, consequently with truths, and as goods and truths are distinct, the clergy and laity must be distinct also." But where does our respondent learn that the laity corresponds with truths ? We by no means admit his " consequently" on this head. The priestly principle does indeed both in the Lord and in man correspond to good, but the proper counterpart to this is not any lay-principle corresponding to truth, but the regal principle of which truth is the genuine basis. Therefore it is said that under the New Dis pensation we are made priests and kings, but not priests and laymen. The priests under the Old Dispensation 144 NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. were distinct from the laity by the very nature of their office, and when it is said that under the New all become priests, it follows that the former distinction is of course done away ; that they are all upon the same plane, though there may still be diversity of functions and uses ; and that the spiritual forms of goodness and truth in the collective man of the church are priesthood and king ship, so that if there is an external order of priests on the one hand there must be an external order of kings on the other. Does our friend recognize his refutation when it comes before him in this form, or does he ex claim, " Quantum mutatus ab illo !" {to) If our correspondent had here quoted our remarks ujDon the passage referred to, it would have been appa rent, we think, that the force of the objection built upon it was effectually done away. As it is, we must rely upon the reader's courtesy to refer to it (N. C. Repos., Dec, 1849). {x) We may oftentimes admit the abstract truth of a principle affirmed to hold in a particular analogy, and yet refuse to admit that the principle can be fairly ap plied in the case which the analogy is designed to illus trate or confute. In the present instance we have no quarrel with what A. E. F. says about the order of in flux, &c., but we do not concede that it overthrows the truth of our position. We do not grant that the origina tion of the true ministry from societies is superseded by any subsequent state of things into which the infancy of the church resolves itself " It is a matter of necessity that the fi-rst ordination should be by the laity ; but it is in vain to rely upon this as proof that it should be so always." We seem to be shut up to the frequent re statement of our main position as the true answer to nearly every argument of our opponent. With him the great point is ordination as that in which the essence of the clerical office consists ; with us the main question is as to the office itself, which we understand to be a func tion of use performed by certain persons duly qualified, but still standing upon the same plane with the mass of NEW CHURCH ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT. 145 the members of the society in whose behoof they offici ate. In the first selection or appointment of these indi viduals we see no objection to the members expressing their concurrence in the choice by the rite of imposition of hands, either in their own persons or by proxy, as convenience may dictate, though we maintain that this act does nothing towards investing them with authority, or elevating them into a distinct superior order, but merely implies a cordial assent to the appointment and an earnest invocation of the divine blessing upon the new relation which is now to be established between the parties. The ceremony may properly enough be per formed, if the societ}' sees fit, while at the same time we see no such absolute necessity for it as that the validity of the function shall be annulled by reason of its ab sence. And so in regard to subsequenf appointments to the same office in the same society. The existing func tionaries may ordain new ones, as circumstances may re- c[uire, with the same interpretation of the import of the rite as in the first instance. It is a decent and becoming ceremony, tending no doubt to enhance the impressive- ness of the occasion, but devoid of that peculiar sanctity and indispensable necessity which has been claimed for it. Our readers will judge from these remarks how much weight we assign to A. E. F.'s position that " you cannot govern a inan by the laws of embryo life, and you should not make the church, full-grown, conform to the model of its forming stage." We are unable to see why the simplest form of a New Church society should not be permanent, just as we have reason to believe that the forms of the heavenly societies are permanent. If BO, the process we have described above of furnishing societies with teachers is all that is requisite, and the reasoning of our correspondent on the subject is an swered. A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL CLERGY. EXTRACT OP A LETTER FROM AN ENGUSH CORRESPONDENT. [N. C. Eepos., May, 1851.] Your fear of having given offence by your speculations to your English brethren, I think you may dismiss at once. If I may judge from my own limited circle, the impression produced is a feeling of regret that your mode of improving our views of clerical institutions, has been so much mixed up with the external and personal affairs of tlie United States Institutions in the N. C.(a) ; and also that we can not clearly see or firmly grasp your views of what is best to be under stood and done, in regard to the relation in question, that is, practi cally, either as regards the present time, or the immediate future, fi J I flnd this same difficuUy in your letter ; and I hesitate what course to take ; to point oat, by a reference to your own words, such as " exclu sive class," " monopoly," " distinct caste" and " order," " permanent order," &c., how you puzzle me ; or to state my own simple view of the main points of the subject. As the shortest course, I will take the latter, flrst remarking, that I cannot admit that in your controversy any sense of teaching by priests was admissible, except that iu public woiship. Any other sense could only generate confusion. (c) I see no need to consult Swedenborg or the Word to ascertain specially whether we want religious teachers (called by Americans " clergy," but clergy here mean Established Church ministers only) to instruct those who assemble for worship on Sundays. Common sense, founded on experience, is an all-sufficient guide. It is a settled point that Christians should use public worship, and no one doubts that a part of the engagements on such occasions should be instruc tion. Then : Query — Who is to give this instruction ? Answer — The most efficient persons available. Query — Should they be per sons specially trained to do so, and rendered more efficient by ap propriate, regular, and constant mental culture, suitable to their work, and perfected by the practice and habit of teaching? Or should the teaching be given extempore by any person chancing to be present, on being called upon ? Answer — When it can be proved that an extempore doctor and lawyer, without special training for their respective vocations, are more efficient than regularly trained doctors and lawyers, then, and not before, it will be proved, that ex tempore, or rather improvisatore, religious teachers, are the best. Query — Is it well, then, to have a trained body of teachers, called by a peculiar designation, who shall devote themselves /or life to the office, and be a distinct body from the taught, called in contradistinction by another designation ? Answer — Lawyers, doctors and schoolmasters A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL CLERGY. 147 devote their lives to their work, and why not religious teachers and pastors ? As to the designation, of what consequence is it, except as it is necessary to facilitate the understanding of speech ? We have clergy and laity ; but the laity only means those who are not clergy. In law we, in Great Britain, have lawyers and " laymen," the latter being those who are not lawyers, including, I presume, clergymen. In physic, we have doctors and the un-professional. These arc real dis tinctions, and nothing more is meant by the designations descriptive of them in one case than the other. Thus we say, " clergy and laity," not to mark a stronger or dlEfcrent line than that which exists between the operators and operated upon, in the other cases. The clergy are no more a distinct body from the rest, than the lawyers and doctors are distinct from the rest. Lawyers and doctors are esteemed according to their talents and known acquirements, and why should not religious teachers olatain influence and employment on the same grounds ? The country wants the use, and wants it performed in the best manner, and therefore wants those who can do it best, and therefore should encour age those who have best qualifled themselves for their work, to adopt the office for life.CdJ In the flrst ages of Christianity, according to Peter, there existed a spiritual priesthood ; and there were also religious teachers ; it does not appear necessary to connect the latter fact with the former, either then, or in the N. C. The former is an invisible body, and each one should take care that he is a member of it ; but what has this to do with providing for the instruction of the people on Sundays ? except, indeed, so far as this — that if we can see in a candidate for the teach er's or pastor's vocation traces of character such as belongs to the spiritual priesthood, combined with efiective talents for teaching, we have good ground for receiving him, since the former without the latter, or the latter without the former, would be useless in a teacher. But it appears to me that the traces of the spiritual priesthood, as existing in the lawyer or doctor, are scarcely less important for them in their voca tion, than for the religious teachers in theirs. Paul was a great reli gious teacher appointed of God, but where, according to the Diary of E. S., was his spiritual priesthood ? Divine Wisdom, in his case, coHsti- tuted a man a religious teacher, who was not then, and perhaps not likely to become, a spiritual priest. This proves that we shall not fatally err by choosing for a religious teacher a man who appears to be a spiritual priest, but is not. Now, all this being granted, how can it be avoided to make a distinction in name between clergy and laity, while there is such a palpable distinction in fact ? Tou admit that the terms clergy, teachers or priests, " indicate a certain form of use," but you affirm that those who perform that use are not a distinct order. Now, my dear sir, I can make nothing out of this but your saying, that they are actually distinct, being distinguished by a distinct use, but they must not be accounted or said to be so ! If your ideas are better than those here suggested, your words are not worthy of them. Lawyers and doctors are a distinct order, and the only marked differ- 148 A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL CLERGY. ence is, that they deal with individuals, while teachers deal with aggre gate bodies ; and partly, perhaps, in consequence of the latter being the case, it has been found expedient that the covenant between the taught and the teacher should be marked by a public ceremonial, which is arranged in various forms, called Ordinations — the covenant being the principal and essential thing, and the mode of ratifying it, the instrumental or non-essential. The covenant is a fact — that cannot be questioned ; and all talk about ordination is not, properly, talk about the clergy as a fact, but a discussion about the mode of celebrat ing a fact relating to them. We have nothing to do with the views of the future N. C. about clergy : we have only to provide for our own wants, and as well and as wisely as we can. When the N. J. attains its glory, there will, per haps, be no doctors and no lawyers, and no teachers such as we now re quire ; but what have we to do with that ? Is it not to us a matter of profltless speculation ? What we want we must liave, and leave the wants of the future to suggest their suitable supplies. There is quite as good reason for discontinuing lawyers and doctors now, as for abolishing the clergy now, because hereafter none of them may be wanted. Let each age do the best it can for itself. Sufficient unto the day are the duties thereof But you might say, " All this is very well, but you know that the Bostonians and others have gone to E. S. to find grounds for a hier archy of three orders, having peculiar and exclusive privileges and powers." Certainly, and you have declared that you do not accept their ecclesiastical constitution, as you had a right to declare; and you have given your reasons for it ; and all I meant to say above in regard to your reasons is, that I wish you had proceeded more accord ing to the short usual process of argument, than according to U. S. N. C. fashion, by so many questionable and uncertain references to E. S. Of course I regard his authority as conclusive, but only when he is obviously speaking to the very point in dispute, or when indisputably his already expressed general principles obviously bear upon it. Con structive conclusions, I like as well, or rather as little, as the old con structive treasons in politics ; — one seeks to get your mind into thrall, and the other, your body. If people's, common conception does not qualify them to judge by the rule of utility whether there should be a trine of clerical grades or not, it seems to me, that all disputing with them, to show that their conclusions from E. S. are perversions, will be lost upon them ; but for the sake of the lookers on, I admit, it is needful for some who feel their vocation for the work, to show that the conclusions referred to are perversions. But this will require concentration of force and great care, to avoid getting into a course of reasoning and disputes on incon clusive, or misunderstood, or misapplied passages of E. S., as inter minable as it is ineffective. It is like arguing by parallels, where nearly all the time is occupied in pointing out want of parallelism. It is said of some people, that they have all sorts of sense except A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL OLERGY. 149 common sense, and it appears to me that E. S., according to your re presentation of his meaning, must be numbered with such characters ; that is, if, in writing the chapter On Ecclesiastical and Civil Govern ment, he only traced what ought to be done in the Old Church by priests and people, in relation to each other, when all the while he knew that the Old Church was incorrigible, and was about to be su perseded by the New ! He knew also, 'according to your reading, that what he pronounced good for the 0. C, though impossible to it, would not be good for the N. C, and yet he omitted to say so ! ! He is evidently speaking of or to a church that he meant to profit by his sug gestions, and therefore must have thought such benefit attainable : I put it to your candor, therefore, and in justice to E. S., was that church which E. S. addressed the utterly ruined 0. C, which cannot be bene fited ; or another church which can ? If the latter, what church could that be except the N. C. ? Why, then, charge him by implication, with violating common sense, flrst by prescribing impossibilities to the O. C. ,¦ and, secondly, by not warning the N. 0. that what he said was exclusively meant for the 0. C, notwithstanding the title of the book — " The N. Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrines ? " Youplace E. S., by your limitation of his meaning, in an inextricable dilemma. In any point of view, you make him wanting in common sense. You make him like a physician who should carefully take measures to convey to his son, after his death, a prescription labelled foir him, and which ap peared on the face of it, to be intended for his son's use, but which, in fact, was nothing but a prescription which one of his dead patients had neglected to take ; and, if taken by the son, would infallibly poison him. Such I think is a fair parallel to the case drawn by you of the conduct of our spiritual physician Swedenborg, in regard to this chapter 1(e) KEMAKKS. {a) We had no special reference, in the tenor of our re marks, to the state of things among our English brethren. We had no aim to " improve their views of clerical in stitutions," but wrote mainly with the actual condition of the New Church in our own country in our eye. At the same time, we have endeavored to unfold the general principles which lie at the foundation of the whole sub ject, and which are of course universally applicable. {b) Our brother is doubtless aware that there is always a difficulty in " seeing clearly" and " grasping firmly" a train of thought which goes counter to the whole current of our previous notions, especially when it questions the soundness of principles that form the basis of usages, in- 14 150 A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL CLERGY. stitutions, and polities with which he has been familiar from childhood, and which are made venerable by his toric recollection. We would not quote the pungent aphoristic couplet of Cowper with any personal allusion to our correspondent ; but it is apropos as expressive of a general fact in human experience, — " The text that suits not to his darling whim, Though clear to others, is obscure to him." We are at least greatly at a loss to conceive that the views which we have advanced on the theme of the ministry and its relative topics is at all difficult of ap prehension considered as a theory. But the practical carrying them out is another matter. And here we must repeat what we have said before, that we have not propounded our sentiments with a view to any abrupt or violent change in the existing order of things. We would have every thing ripen by due degrees. Seeds of thought, like seeds of plants, may be properly sown, with the full understanding that they are to lie for a longer or shorter time in the mental soil before they germinate, and still longer before they come to maturity. In the present instance we have thrown out suggestions bearing upon the true constitution and order of the New Church, the tendency of which is undoubtedly to operate impor tant changes, not only of opinion, but of action on these subjects, as to which, however, we still trust to the good sense and wisdom of reflecting men not to precipitate results even from principles that are intrinsically sound. That which is essentially reformatory need not be at the same time violently revolutionary. (c) We will not quarrel with this position, although we should no doubt difi'er from our friend as to the pro minence which was to be given to teaching as a de partment of public worship. But of this more in what follows. {d) The course of reasoning here adopted proceeds, we think, upon an inadequate view, not only of the true ends of worship, but also of the true coristituents of A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL CLERGY. 151 a Church. " Theology," says Jeremy Taylor, " is not so much a divine doctrine as a divine life." This is entire ly in accordance with the scope of the informations im parted to the New Church. The aim of its doctrines is to develope a new life wherever they are received, and the elements of this new life are the same in all. Wherever they exist, there is the church in its least form indeed, but in all its essential fulness ; consequent ly, every requisite function of the Church must poten tially reside in every individual member of the Church. How this can consist with the exclusive possession of the teaching prerogative by any distinct order, class, or caste of men, is what we are unable either " clearly to see or firmly to grasp." And yet as here, if any where, is the fundamental fallacy of our position, it claims to be directly met and answered. Instead of doing this, how ever, our astute correspondent plants his battery against the practical operation of the scheme, by showing up its impotency to secure the desirable ends of religious in struction as a part of public worship. How shall a man teach to any advantage who has not been duly qualified by previous training and culture for the work? And how can this important function be secured in the Church, except by means of a trained body of teachers, called by a special designation, devoted to the office for life, and thus necessarily constituting a distinct and ex clusive class ? And is not such a class as completely contradistinguished, in the nature of the case, from the taught as are doctors and lawyers from patients and cli ents ? It is easy to see the extreme plausibility of this kind of argument, and yet it is very far from carrying conviction to our mind. It is not satisfactory, inasmuch as it appears to us to give to the understanding the pro minence due rather to the will, and to imply that in struction, instead of devotion, is the principal object of worship. As we read the genius of the Lord's kingdom, his people come together in worship rather for the pur pose of bringing the offerings of praise, adoration, and grateful love, for looking to the Lord, seeking a direct 152 A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL CLERGY. influx of divine good to their souls, and for the quicken ing of every holy impulse of feeling, than for the edifica tion of the ' intellect. In a word, we regard the will rather than the understanding, as the principle mainly concerned in worship. The great end to be attained by it we consider to be the quickening of the devout affec tions — the reinforcement of love to the Lord and charity to the neighbor, and all the minor graces of the regen erating spirit. At the same time, as the opening of the Word in its spiritual sense, and its application to the personal conscience, conduces to the ends of worship, so we freely admit the propriety of such instruction on such occasions ; and as to the dispensers of it, the natu ral impression would be, that those would be the best qualified for it who were most fully furnished with it, and those surely might be presumed to be most in truth who were most in good, as all genuine truth is from genuine good. So far as we can see, all in the Church are required to be equally assiduous in the cultivation of goods and truths, and all have an equal interest in the spiritual well-being of the whole body. It is ordered, too, that the gifts of each should be made available to the behoof all, and we regard it as simply impossible that any member of the Church should be truly in the life and spirit of the Church, without being able to im part useful instruction in some form to his brethren. He can no more lack this ability than a healthy organ in a healthy human body can fail to elaborate its use in the general economy of the system. Nothing can be more apropos in this connexion, than Paul's illustra tion ; — " From whom the whole body fitly joined to gether, and compacted by that which every joint sup- plieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edi fying of itself in love." That there will ever be some in every society better qualified to impart instruction than others, is beyond question ; and if so, let them chiefly exercise the function. But let them not, on this account, make an exclusive prerogative of what is essen tially a common privilege and a common duty. A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL OLERGY. 153 From what we have now said, it will be seen that we think little of the force of the argument drawn from the su^jposed parallel case of the doctor and the lawyer. The cases are not parallel. The vocations ofthe doctor and the lawyer require of necessity the attainment of knowledges diverse from those of the mass of the community among whom their respective professions are practiced. A peculiar training is therefore requisite in their case, be cause the end is peculiar. They are to do what their patients and clients cannot be expected to do, and they are to prepare themselves accordingly. But how is it in a Church ? What is a Church society in its essential nature ? Is it not an association formed for purposes in which every member has the same interest with every. other member ? Is there not the utmost community of object prevailing among those who belong to it? And is not this object one that has relation mainly to life ? Is not the Church rather a school of life than a semi nary of science ? What interest have the so-called teachers apart from that of the taught ? What does it behoove one to know which it does not another? How then can there be a basis for a distinction of classes simi lar to those of physic and law? Or with what justice can the peculiarity in the one sphere of use be offset against the community in the other? As to the extem pore character of the instructions given under the sup posed order of things, our correspondent surely will not deny that under a glowing state of heavenly affection there may be and often is, not only a special interior illustration, but a freedom, fluency, and pertinency of speech, that the most elaborate preparation from the memory can scarcely approach. But how absurd the supposition that the Divine infiux should inspire doctors and lawyers to act the improvisator in this manner in the discharge of their professional duties ! The com parison is altogether inappropriate, as in the one case we are dealing with an art or science which is necessarily limited to a class, and which must be acquired by a special course of training ; whereas, in the other, we 14* 154 A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL CLERGY. contemplate a form of spiritual and moral life, the func tions and obligations of which pertain equally to every individual. We must of course be aware that the carry ing out of the views now advanced necessarily supposes a very altered state of things in the Church, from the past or present ; and we are entirely willing that our argument should be taken with all the abatement that may accrue to it from the imputation of being impracti cable in the present condition of things in the world.' We are deeply sensible that the standard of life is alto gether too low to allow us to cherish the hope that existing usages and institutes may be dispensed with for a long time to come ; nor, as we have already said, have we any disposition to precipitate a new era, in this re spect, in the Church. But we have no reserve in pro posing the subject for consideration. We hesitate not to offer suggestions. A commencement must be made at some time or other. It will devolve upon some one to broach the topic for the first, and we know not that it is ever too early to announce the ideas which are destined in the end to counteract the evils of long established in stitutions. In the present case we have no debate with our correspondent as to the fact of the usefulness of the clergy in the present order of things ecclesiastical in all Christian countries, nor do we question for a moment that the more richly endowed, intellectually and spiritu ally, are the Pastors of Churches, the more useful will they be. On this head we can afford to make the am plest concessions. But the true question is, first, whether the distinction of clergy and laity as everywhere under stood, rests upon a solid basis of truth ; and, secondly, whether taking every thing into view, the disadvantages attending the present system are not such as to outweigh its advantages. The latter proposition may be pre sumed, if the former be admitted, for what is not war ranted by the Word, is not to be expected to be expedi ent on the whole. For ourselves we see abundant grounds of doubt on both these points. We see the great body of the Church virtually released from duties A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL CLERGY. 155 and uses which cannot in our view be justly alienated or made over to any other party. We see under the pre sent system a sinking of individual responsibility in the prominence given, and the importance attached to cleri cal agency, which cannot but be eventually attended with disastrous effects upon tlie best interests of the Lord's kingdom in the hearts of his people. We see in this system the germ of all that hierarchy which has been ' from the earliest ages of the Christian Church the bane of its prosperity, and the presage of similar evils in the Church of the New Jerusalem. It is for this reason that the subject has weighed heavily on our thoughts, and- as we have believed so have we spoken. It is on this ground that we would plant our reply to what is urged in a subsequent part of the above letter in respect to our non-concern in the Church's future. We confess to no little surprise on this head. " We have only to provide for our own wants, and as well and wisely as we can. When the New Jerusalem attains its glory there will, perhaps, be no doctors, aud no lawyers, and no teachers such as we (now) require, but what have we to do with that ? Is it not to us a matter of profitless speculation ?" It is surely the part of charity to consult the well-being of those who shall come after us as well as to study the good of our coevals. It is no matter of " profitless speculation" to determine the principles which should govern the Church in its ecclesiastical re lations in our own day, and if these principles are sound, we ought to feel an anxious desire that their operation may be perpetuated. Surely we cannot be true to our better promptings, aud still be indifferent to the highest welfare of the Church in after ages. Can we see evils in existence in the Church of the present, and not desire to have them eradicated from the Church of the future ? Shall we not aim to hand down this precious inheritance to posterity purged to the utmost of imperfections and in a form most prolific of blessing ? At the same time there is a fallacy in the idea that we cannot consult the interests of the future without violently abrogating 156 A TRAINED AND PROFESSIONAL CLERGY. the present. It is not necessary to " abolish the clergy now," in order to secure the benefits for our posterity, which we would fain compass. All that we propose is, that the subject should be candidly weighed, and if any real errors or evils are indicated, that they should be gradually corrected, as the wisdom of the Church shall deem expedient. Is there any thing ultra or extrava gant in this ? (e) Instead of repeating our former arguments on this head, we will propose one query to our friend, the writer of the letter. In the H. D. (No. 315) we find the fol lowing : — " With respect to priests, their duty is to teach men the way to heaven, and likewise to lead them there in. They are to teach them according to the doctrine of their Church, {ecclesim sum,) which is derived from the Word of God ; and to lead them to live according to that doctrine." What is to be understood by the phrase " their Church " in this connexion 1 It will be seen in deed that theforce of the expression is altogether lost in our translation, which renders it " the Church •," but we have given the original, which, in the letter is too plain to be misunderstood. What is its fair interpretation ? Does it not imply that the priests or ministers of the several Churches in Christendom, as the Lutheran, the Calvinistic, the Episcopal, the Baptist, the Methodist, &c., are to teach according to the tenets which these bodies respectively hold as being, in their view, derived from the Word of God ? If so, it obviously confirms our constraction of the whole article, and this impres sion is strengthened by the consideration that a monar chical form of government for the State is as unequivo cally prescribed as is a priestly order for the Church. Our correspondent will no doubt find some way of get ting smoothly over the difficulty, but there it stands, and many there are, ourselves among the number, who do not know how to reconcile it with such a view of the whole chapter as the writer contends for. THE PARTY OP ORDER AND THE PARTY OF LIBERTY. [N.C. Repos., March, 1852.] We insert the following from an esteemed brother at the West, because we are always happy to receive the friendly hints of brethren in the Church, and because it affords us an opportunity of adding a few words on the general subject to which the writer alludes. M C , Feb. 1, 1852. DEAR SIR, Inclosed you have two dollars for the current year of the Repository. Mr. S., whose subscription I sent last year, is not disposed to renew ; the course of the Repository the past year has not been attractive to novitates. For myself I have been highly interested in the discussions on the subject of Church order, though they appear to have occupied too large a space. I cannot, however, apart from this, acknowledge my self satisfled with the style of most of the articles on these subjects. Each party seems to view but one side of the questions at issue, and to be anxious rather to present their own partial conceptions, than to de velop those universal principles in which truths of every phase are seen to harmonize. Hence but little progress is made ; few are satis fied, and if any are silenced, it is because they are weary of the sub ject, rather than convinced or enlightened. Each party appears to withhold the light from the very part of its position which is earnestly questioned by the other side — whether from conscious weakness or distrust does not clearly appear. The party of " order" are careful to say very little about the source of their authority, or of those grand principles of freedom of thought and freedom of utterance which are supposed to conflict with their pre tensions. On the other hand, the partizans of " liberty" are equally silent upon questions of organization, subordination, and authority, which are generally held to be essential to united and harmonious ac tion, and when pressed with quotations from Swedenborg, have been fain to appeal to other quotations from the same authority, with scarcely an attempt to reconcile them. Now I hold that such a state of things is disgraceful, especially when taken in connection with the pretensions of the New Church to superior illumination, and I do most sincerely hope and pray that this 158 THE PARTY OF ORDER AND THE PARTY OF LIBERTY. one-sided business may cease. Let none presume to dogrnatize till he can cover the whole ground, and without evasion harmoniously recon cile order with freedom, the rights of man with his duties, as involved in this question. A slight attempt was made to accomplish this in the argument from analogy which formed a part of the Majority report on this subject to the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Michigan and Northern Indi ana Association, which report you were pleased to notice in a very favorable manner. I think that the principles presented in that report, if properly developed, will be found to meet the difficulties of the sub ject in the most satisfactory manner. I am aware that some portions of it have been subjected to an unfavorable criticism in the (English) New Church Review, and for some time I contemplated a reply, in which I should have shown, that in the most important matter of dif ference the report was misunderstood by the reviewer ; but want of time, and flnally the withdrawal of the copy of the review itself pre vented me. However, should the subject be pursued in the Repository, and should circumstances favor me, I will, with your permission, endeavor, in a brief article, to present the matter anew, with such farther expla nations and developments as may seem advisable. I remain, very truly yours, R. H. M. REMARKS. We have before taken occasion to express some degree of surprise that the thorough discussion of the sub ject of church order in our pages should have proved so distasteful to a large portion of our readers. It cannot be denied that the subject is intrinsically im portant, and therefore entitled to the most candid and serious consideration of every member of the church. Nor do we see any reason to doubt that views have been held and assumptions put forth, in connection with this theme, which it was perfectly proper should be called in question, and submitted to the ordeal of the Word and the writings. So far as our own humble essays are con cerned, this is what we have attempted to do. Others who have shared in our sentiments, have ably seconded our efforts, and subjected the opposite views to a search ing analysis. Meantime we have freely opened our pages to the advocates of the prevailing " order," and given them every opportunity to defend and confirm THE PARTY OF ORDER AND THE PARTY OF LIBERTY. 159 their positions. So far no just exceptions, we think, can be taken to our course. No one can object to our giving a fair hearing to both sides of all important but disput ed topics. The exception taken, however, by our corres pondent, is not so much to the fact of the discussion as to the mode in which it has been conducted. Each party has taken a one-sided view of the matter, and aim ed to present " its own partial conceptions, rather than to develop those universal principles in which truths of every phase are seen to harmonize." This may be so, but such a process of umpirage is usually the result of the successive pleadings of the parties concerned, when each has brought forth and set in array the strong rea sons upon which its opinions are based. The first object in such a discussion is generally to assail some establish ed error of faith or institution, and to expose the fallacy of the reasonings on which it rests. This can seldom be . done without converting mild discussion into excited controversy ; for there are usually so many interests wrapped up in existing systems, that the least ap proach to an investigation awakens at once the signal of alarm, and the whole force of the citadel sallies forth to repel the invaders — who Pmust be enemies of course — from the consecrated precincts. The self-styled assailed can seldom see any other than sinister motives in the as sailants, as they are invidiously termed, and the hard measure of censure and reproach which they are prone to deal out, no doubt tends very much to awaken somewhat of a similar spirit, and both parties become more are less blinded to the real merits of each other's positions. In this way the spirit of charity is wounded, and the interests of truth for a time sufter. But in the meanwhile light has been elicited from the collision of views, and when the excitement of the occasion has passed away, some more dispassionate mind takes up the subject of debate from a higher stand-point, and brings it precisely to such an issue as our friend desiderates in the above letter. Of the two parties hinted at and designated by our 160 THE PARTT OF ORDER AND THE PARTY OF LIBERTY. correspondent, we should ourselves undoubtedly fall into that of " liberty," and of this he says, that the partizans are " silent upon questions of organization, subordination, and authority, which are generally held to be essential to united and harmonious action, and when pressed with quotations from Swedenborg, have been fain to appeal to other quotations from the same authority, with scarcely an attempt to reconcile them." Now to this we have something to offer by way of reply. It would be strange indeed if we had much to propound ofthe " nature of or ganization, subordination, and authority ;" when this is the very rock on which, in our view, the Church has been in danger of splitting, and of which we have been anxious to warn her. What system of external " organ ization, subordination, and authority" have we to pro pose, when the very drift of all our reasonings has been to show that charity is itself an essential organizing principle, aud that no man or society can possibly be in the genuine charity of the Church, without being actual ly organized in reference to every other man and society that is under the infliience of the same principle. On this head we beg leave to introduce a paragraph from an article of our own, published under the signature of " Eusebius" in the Eepository for Jan. 1850. " Every society (in the New Church) is to be left iu the fullest enjoyment of its freedom in the management of its own concerns. It is responsible to no power or tribunal save that of the Lord, except just so far as every organ and member of the human body is responsible to the whole, as being a component part of the whole and required to conspire, in its place and office, to the production ofthe general unity of effect in the whole. So far as one life, in its orderly influx, pervades and governs the en tire body of the Church, so far there will necessarily be a sympathetic and reciprocal co-working of its multi form constituents, all tending to one paramount result, and that whether there be any such thing as conventions or councils, or not. If the Divine influx be rightly and adequately received by any organism, whether phy- THE PARTY OF ORDER AND THE PARTY OF LIBERTY. 161 sical or spiritual, there will be of necessity a consentane ous action of the several component parts, tending to one ruling end, just as real and as effective as if it had pro ceeded from the Voluntary and conscious purpose of those parts. An associated religious body, i. e., a body asso ciated by the profession of the same faith, existing in true order, may be considered as having a cerebellum which presides over all its involuntary motions, as well as a cerebrum that controls the voluntary, and the func tions of the former are no less conducive to the weal of the whole than if they were governed by the direct con scious volition of the cerebral intelligence." Now in this we deem ourselves to have asserted a genuine principle of the New Church, and if so it is en titled to be imperative upon our faith ; if not, let its fal lacy be shown. But it will perhaps be said that though the principal is correct, yet our inference from it is un sound — that an internal organization will necessarily ultimate itself in an external one, and thus we shall of necessary consequence have essentially that visible church order which is contended for. To this we reply, that there can be no end to be answered by an external organization except an end of use, for use is what is con stantly regarded by the charity of the church as an in ternal organizing principle. And what is the grand use which the life of the church incessantly breathes after and effects ? Is it not the increase and propagation of itself? Is it not the diffusion and multiplication of its truths and goods ? Consequently whatever of associated or co-operative efforts may be requisite for this end, and which shall not trench upon the personal freedom, or supersede the individual action, of each member, is entirely proper, expedient, and wise. But this conces sion will afford no warrant for any legislative council or convention. The Church has nothing to legislate about. Its laws are all made and have only to be lived. The sole uses to be attained by occasional or stated meetings of New Church men or New Church societies are those which respect the ordering of its worship, the promotion 15 162 THE PARTY OF ORDER AND THE PARTY OF LIBERTY. of its spiritual life, and the widest dissemination of its doctrines as embodied in the writings of the Church. The creation of a ministry is no part of the functions of such meetings. The ministry is entirely and exclusively the offspring of the several societies composing the larger bodies, and these bodies are merely voluntary as semblages meeting from time to time as convenience of locality may dictate without being organically consoli dated into permanent ecclesiastical unions, analogous to the political confederacies which we call States. The claim on the part of conventional bodies to be the true source of ministerial power can never be allowed with out at the same time planting the seed from which the tree of hierarchy will be sure to grow. The ministry is evermore prior to all bodies composed in whole or in part of ministers. Whatever, then, be the use of con ventions, it is something apart from the creation of a clergy. But upon this point we have been sufficiently explicit on former occasions. Our leading idea on organization will be made still clearer by referring again to the prototypal form and fabric of the human body. What were more strange or outre than to imagine the different organs and viscera taking counsel together and entering into a compact to act in unison in producing the normal effects of the several functions ? What is the use of such a compact when every portion of the body performs its office by virtue of its being in the body and governed by its influ ent life ? So in the spiritual body, the Church. Every one by living and acting in his place most perfectly ful fils his use, and works for the welfare of the whole. What other organization is needed in the latter body any more than in the former? Occasional or even stated meetings within their certain territorial limits, for consultation or co-operation does not amount to any external organization of the Church in strict propriety of speech. They are more nearly allied to the great benevolent societies of the age, which would be acting a strange THE PARTY OF ORDER AND TIIE PARTY OF LIBERTY. 163 part if they were to identify themselves with the church, and maintain that their organization was the organiza tion of the Church. All genuine New Church associa tions and conventions we hold to be of a similar charac ter — simply an expedient for furthering the interests of the church without aspiring to form an essential part of its constitution. What then meaus our correspondent by saying that the " partizans of liberty are silent upon questions of or ganization, subordination and authority." What shall we say about them ? What is to be organized ? What is to be subordinated, and to what ? What authority is to be assumed and acknowledged ? Can he or will he define his drift on these points ? But he intimates again that the party in question " when pressed with quotations from Swedenborg, have been faiu to appeal to other quotations from the same authority, with scarcely au attempt to reconcile them." Aud why should we attempt to reconcile them ? What have we to do to assume the task which devolves on our opponents ? We urge, upon the authority of our great teacher, one grand fundamental principle — to wit, that every man of the church is a church in the least form. The principle involves in effect the whole of our positions on church order. It is clear, deliberate, distinct, indu bitable. Against it a man may heap up detached quo tations till doomsday, and what does it avail? Here stands the inexpugnable principle, and by this principle stand we. We have nothing to do with quotations till the truth of this principle is denied and its fallacy shown. So long as the principle remains unshaken, we know that no quotation, rightly construed, can countervail it. If there appears to be a literal conflict, that is the concern of our opponents, and not ours. We recognize no conflict, no discrejjancy. In our view all is consis tent and harmonious. On this ground we await calmly the result. Hitherto there has been the most careful shunning of contact with the principle above stated. The writers on the other side have played around and around it, but have never ventured directly to encounter 164 THE PARTY OF ORDER AND THE PARTY OF LIBERTY. it. What wonder that so little progress is made in the discussion when our main averment is left argumen- tatively untouched, and merely a host of quotations, like those accumulated by Mr. Cabell in reply to A. W., are arrayed against it ? To the force of all such quotations we are utterly insensible so long as the central fortress of our reasoning is winked out of sight. To the judgment of our readers, then, we submit whether the intimations of our correspondent are well founded. The discussion has, indeed, in a sense been one-sided, for on our part it has been what we deem the advocacy of the side of truth against the side of error, and in this controversy we do not care to be found on both sides. It were a singular imputation to have cast upon Luther and his compeers, that in exposing the abo minations of Popery that they took entirely a one-sided view of the subject. They would undoubtedly at once have owned to the charge while they greatly wondered at it. If it be said that our positions are too sweeping, that we would abolish what is good as well as what is evil in the existing order of things, we can only say that we would be grateful for specifications on this head. We would not abolish meetings nor ministries. We would not dispense with order nor form. But we would plead for true order and true form — for right meetings and right ministries — and what these are in contradistinc tion from those hitherto established cannot but be gather ed from the drift of what we have so abundantly said on the subject. Should there, however, be any point on which we could be desired to speak more explicitly, we should be happy to respond when the desideratum is in dicated. APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. [N. C Repos., April to Sept.] We have for some time been conscious of a promjjt- ing to broach in some way, in our pages, the subject of the present communication, as we have no doubt that it may be discussed as a department of New Church duty in a New Church spirit. Large numbers of our brethren of the church residing in the Southern States are connected in one way or other with the institution, and as the moral sentiment of the North, representing both the New Church and the Old, is at this day serious ly and somewhat sternly interrogating the whole spirit and genius of the system, it seems no more than is due from the courtesy of fellow recipients of the heavenly doctrines that they should account to each other for any modes of thinking or acting which are calculated to give offence or wound the spirit of brotherly love. If such a requisition be made in the spirit of meekness, with no intention to denounce, vilify, or irritate, but simply from the promptings of the great law of charity, and with the most sincere design to give a candid hearing to every argument or apology that may be offered in behalf of the cause which they are upholding, we are unable to see in this any real ground of complaint or disaffection on the part of our Southern friends. We are well aware indeed that the subject has not always been broached in a manner adapted to secure a kindly or even patient at tention on the part of slaveholders, and we can, make all charitable allowance for the sensitiveness with which every thing in the form of remonstrance, however re spectful, or even of discussion, however candid, is prone to be met. But that this sensitiveness should be so in tense in the minds of Newchurchmen as to make them frown upon the attempt to canvass its merits upon pure- 16* 166 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. ly moral grounds, we cannot well conceive ; nor will we allow ourselves, without evidence, to anticipate a sinister reception of what our pages may contain on the subject. We will not look for an entertainment of our suggestions at the hand of ora- brethren which would imply a secret misgiving as to the intrinsic character of the institu- tution which they are engaged in upholding. For ourselves, we are free to say that we regard the system of slavery, as it exists in the Southern States, as an evil of such magnitude as imperatively to appeal for a remedy to the consciences of all concerned in any way in its support and perpetuation. But while we say this we are at the same time conscious of no acerbity of spirit towards the persons of those who are engaged in upholding it. We say it in full view of all the peculiar circumstances that go to qualifiy the evil as far as the agency of individual supporters is concerned ; and we say it under the firm conviction of deep and merciful de signs, on the part of Divine Providence, hereafter to be gloriously developed, bearing upon the destiny of the colored race — designs which will have the effect to con vert their residence iu this land to the most signal bless ing that could have befallen them. Nevertheless we clearly perceive a great moral evil and wrong in the sys tem, against which we are inwardly moved to lift up a voice of protest, and to bring the question home, as one of practical import to every receiver of the New Church, whether there is not something positive for him to do in effecting its removal. In thus coming before our brethren of the slave States, we should feel that we were greatly wronged if met by an ill construction of motives. We are conscious of nothing that should give offence. We have no railing accusations to bring against any. We feel the drawing of a kind and christian affection to wards our brethren. We think, indeed, we see reason to fear that their spiritual states may be injured by the rela tion in which they stand to an evil thing, tinder this impression, we come to them in a spirit of meekness, and virtually say^ " Come, brethren, let us reason to- APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 167 gether of this momentous theme. Let us see whether possibly we may not suggest to you some considerations deserving of serious thought. But do not at the out set of the conference, count us your enemies because we propose it — because we wish to open our minds with fraternal freedom on a point that weighs heavily with us, and which, in our judgment, ought thus to weigh with you. If it does not, pray show us why it does not. If it does, expound to us the measures you propose to adopt to do away the evil. As we are willing and anxious to listen to you, so refuse not to lend an ear to us. Say not that it is a topic with which we have nothing to do. We all have to do with each other's spiritual welfare if we would be- faithful to the law of love. We cannot proper ly stand aloof from our brethren and forbear to utter a word of warning if we deem them placed in circum stances of danger, and where silence would be recreancy to justice, affection and truth. ' Thou shalt not suffer sin upon thy neighbor,' is a precept of which the literal and spiritual sense are at one. Let us then in all Chris tian amity compare views on the subject, and see how far we hold in common, and where, and how far we di verge from each other." It is in this spirit that we approach the subject, and we cannot but trust that our aim will be duly appreciat ed. Let it not be said that though denizens of the North we are incompetent to treat the theme, from igno rance of the real posture of things in the Southern States. This is a very deep-seated impression with our friends in that region. It embodies itself in the spirit of the following extract from a letter recently received from a respected N. C. brother in Yirginia. " I never yet saw a Northern man who thoroughly understood the negro character — the relation of master and slave, as it exists here — the state of this population — and the difficulties which environ the whole subject. As to this matter, even intelligent and sincere men with you seem to be absolutely impenetrable." From this position we are forced to dissent. We are utterly unable to see why a 168 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. sound and unimpeachable judgment of the morale of slavery may not be formed by any man of ordinary in telligence, though he may never have set foot upon Southern soil, or made himself master of all the thou sand-fold details of the system. And it is only in its moral aspect that we propose to consider it. Its social and political bearings we leave to others. Its character, as compared with the perfect standard of "justice, goodness, and truth," is what we would fain ascertain, and this we do not regard as an achievement requiring a previous personal contact with the system in its practical working. The fact is, there is an antecedent probability that those who have been born and bred in the midst of the system, who have always breathed its atmosphere, and who have, as it were, worn it as a garment, are more liable to be blinded to its essential genius than those who view it from without. But whether we under stand it in all its length and breadth or not, we deem ourselves sufficiently acquainted with it to call in ques tion some of its fundamental principles; and to this there can be no reasonable objection, provided it be done in a proper spirit. A reply to our remarks — and perhaps more than one — may be proffered by some of our Southern, or, pro bably, our Northern brethren. Such a reply, written in the spirit of our own essay, we shall most readily and cordially insert. But we must be allowed to insist that it shall be a reply to our arguments and to no other — that it shall confine itself to the single point in debate, which is the absolute right or wrong of slavery, and the consequent duty of those engaged in its support. It will avail nothing to the determination of the grand question to argue ever so elaborately that the African race in this country is better off in bondage than in freedom — that in this state they are for the most part kindly treated, not over worked in health, nor neglected in sickness — that the insti tution is patriarchal in its character, and warranted by the letter of holy writ (as is also war and polygamy) and that the schemes of abolitionists are fraught with infinite APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 169 mischief, etc., etc. To some of this we fully assent, and therefore it is needless to dwell upon it. As to other items we might be willing to consider them on another occasion, or under a different issue, bu^ at present they are aside of the main point, and we would not waste time or anxiety on irrelevant topics. We would simply say, as to one intimation, that we are accountable for no body's abolition but our own, and for the genuine effects of that we are ready at any time to be responsible. We belong to no abolition society or clique, nor do we speak in the name of any. Our sentiments on the subject flow directly from our views of the great principles of recti tude and truth, and as to who may agree or disagree with us — this is a matter of indifference. The true tone and temper in which we think the subject ought to be broached is well set forth by Mr. De Charms in his valuable pamphlet on Freedom and Slavery : — " The wise and proper course is to reason with our brethren in true political love — to show them, if we can, their error in kindness ; and by convincing their reason, so act upon their own wills as to get them to work themselves in freely and rationally putting off an acknowledged evil." We are not conscious of being governed by any other spirit in dealing with the subject in our pages. Nor do we deem ourselves justly liable to the charge of undue as sumption on the score of virtue or sanctity, in thus prof fering our sentiments to our brethren. We are deeply sensible of our evils and infirmities in many respects, but we humbly aim to put them away when discovered, and we do not find a complete exemption from defects in ourselves required as a pre-requisite to the duty of pointing out, in brotherly kindness, the defects of others. Our first intention was to have penned a formal article, or series of articles, on the subject, discussing it exclu sively on its moral grounds. Meantime the ensuing " Aphorisms" were proffered for publication, and we have concluded to make them a text for a series of comments in which our leading views on the general topic will appear. 170 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. Slavery, in all states where it exists, is a public or national evil. This is plain from its ofigin in the Slave-trade, which is now universally condemned — from the fact that it deprives men of various natural rights — and from several unhappy consequences resulting from it. This is, doubtless, very sound as far as it goes, but we should have given more extension to the evil. It is not only a "public or national," but a private or personal evil, inasmuch as it is sustained by individual agency. The habit of contemplating it mainly as a "public or national " evil, is apt to induce an obliviousness of its moral features which have especial relation to the will of the individual slaveholder. It is usually of but little account for men to acknowledge the existence of public or national evils, so long as they lose sight of the quota which they, each in their individual capacity, contribute to their existence or continuance. The slavery which exists in any slave State is the slavery which has been established in legal form by the collective will of the people of that State, and no one can blink the share of responsibility which fairly pertains to him as an up holder of the laws which uphold slavery. It is on the ground of this responsibility that the intelligent aboli tionist of the North appeals to his Southern brother. He would kindly admonish him of the fallacy of the at tempt to stave off the demands of duty under the plea that the system is the creature of the State, and that un til the laws ofthe State are repealed, his aim is powerless to attempt any thing towards its removal . But in matters of moral moment the voice of duty is direct to the man rather than to the citizen. The man stands in this re- ffpect alone before God, and has no counsel to take with flesh and blood. The only point to be settled is whether any enactment, usage, or institution is intrinsically evil, and whether we, as individuals, have any agency in maintaining it. Let these two things be established and the sequence is inevitable, that a man is solemnly APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 171 bound to ignore, withdraw, repudiate, and abnegate that agency which he may previously have had in sus taining the system. In what ]3recise way this is to be done, we shall venture to suggest in the sequel. II. The State in which slavery exists cannot plead, in excuse of this evil, the good results which may be shown to attend the institution, such as the civilizing and christianizing of the Africans, &c. Every evil com mitted by man has similar good results educed from it by the Divine Providence, and might be excused on this ground. Here again the individual is merged in the State. Why could not the writer have said : " He who holds his fellow-man in bondage cannot plead, in excuse of this evil, the good results which may be shown to attend the institution," &c. With this modification we accept and endorse the aphorism in all cordialitj'-. The principle here embodied is one to which we would especially invite the attention of Southern Newchurchmen. It touches the point where, if we mistake not, they are extremely liable to settle down in a fallacious view of the doctrine ofthe Divine Providence. We cannot indeed easily con ceive that an intelligent Newchurchman should seriously and of set purpose make the jDrovidential permission of an evil a plea for contented acquiescence in it, yet when the current of self-interest runs strongly in that direction, there is doubtless danger of the ^raciiea? adoption of such a plea. " If the Divine Wisdom and love tolerates such and such evils, why should not we," is a language which the heart may utter when the lips would shudder to pro nounce it. But surely the permissions of the Divine Providence can never be fairly construed into a sanction of the reason, or a quietus of the conscience, that is con cerned with them. The position of the aphorism, how ever, is so clear and express on this head as to preclude the necessity of reiteration or enforcement from us. 172 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. in. Slavery is imputable as a sin in a threefold manner ; first, to those who are actually slave-holders ; secondly, to those who favor and uphold it socially ; thirdly, to those who favor and uphold it politically. Every one is in fault according to the degree in which, besides being the holder of slaves, he asserts and defends the institution. So far as slavery is a sin, it can scarcely be said to be imputable in more than one manner, though it may be imputed to different classes and in different degrees. This, we presume, is the writer's meaning, and with a more exact specification of the first class we should not pro bably dissent from it. But on this whole subject the nicest distinctions are imperatively required. " Slavery is not imputable as a sin to those who are actually slave holders." Yet in a subsequent aphorism, the writer says, " Hence one may be a slave-holder, and yet be fully exculpated from any share in the evil;" and in that which immediately follows we read that, " they have not slavery imputed to them who acknowledge it to be an evil, and act for its removal." It is evident, therefore, that the phrase " actual slave-holders" requires explica tion, as the character of the slave-holding can never be satisfactorily determined apart from the anijnus of the slaYe-holder in sustaining the relation. Doubtless, cir cumstances may exist which shall essentially change the character of that relation. Take, for instance, the case of one (would that their number were increased a thou sand fold !) who has hitherto been a holder of slaves, but who has — no matter how — become convinced that the relation, in the light in which he has all along viewed it, and in which it is generally viewed, is one which cannot be sustained without sin, and who, under the force of this conviction, is sincerely and deeply desirous of extricating himself from that relation, and of retrieving the wrong which he may have done to a fellow-creature, or, at least, to the spirit of justice, — shall we say that his retaining his bond-men, in this state of mind, is necessarily and APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLTnON. 173 per se a sin ? Surely, if the man is honest in his convic tions, and this we suppose, he will not rest without efforts to release himself from the dilemma in which he is placed, and he will not feel at liberty to retain in his possession this species of property, so-called, any longer than the embarrassments of his condition and a regard to their best good will allow. He will look upon the re lation as a merely temporary one, which he is willing at any time to dissolve, as soon as he sees clearly what the Lord, speaking in his " royal law" of charity, would have him to do. It must be obvious that, so long as one re mains in this transition state, holding his slaves in trust and not in fee, he comes not into the same category with the selfsatisfied, unquestioning, unreflecting slave-mas ter, ruling as by a divine right. The distinction is evi dently an important one, and one that required to be clearly made in the aphorism, as the position will not hold good, unless by actual " slave-holders" the author has in his eye those who have no scruples on the subject, who never interrogate themselves, or permit the interro gations of others, in respect to the moral aspects of the relation. In reference to persons of this description the position is, doubtless, sound ; and though we are not dis posed to make much of the distinction between those who uphold the institution " socially," and those who uphold it " politically," yet we freely assent to the general purport of the aphorism. While, however, we believe that " slavery is imputable as a sin to those who are ac tually slave-holders," in the sense above defined, we do not, at the same time, forget that much charitable allow ance is to be made for those who have had the system transmitted to them from their fathers, who have been born and nurtured under its influence, and who have sel dom or never heard it called in question. The dictates of a genuine charity will not permit us to lose sight of whatever extenuating circumstances may be cited in con nection with any particular form of evil. On this head we acknowledge all the force of Dr. Channing's masterly appeal in his " Letter to the Abolitionists." 16 174 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. " As an example of the unjust severity which I blame, it may be stated that some among you have been accus tomed to denounce slaveholders as ' robbers and man- stealers.' Now, robbery and stealing are words of plain signiflcation. They imply that a man takes consciously and with knowledge what belongs to another. To steal is to seize privily ; to rob is to seize by force the acknow ledged property of one's neighbor. Now, is the slave holder to be charged with these crimes ? Does he know that the slave he holds is not his own ? On the contrary, is there any part of his property to which he thinks him self to have a stronger right ? I grant that the delusion is a monstrous one. I repel with horror the claim of ownership of a human being. I can as easily think of owning an angel as of owning a man. But do we not know that there are men at the North, who, regarding the statute-book as of equal authority with the Sermon on the Mount, and looking on legal as synonymous with moral right, believe that the civil law can create property in a man as easily as a brute, and who, were they consis tent, would think themselves authorized to put their parents under the lash, should the legislature decree, that at a certain age, the parent should become the slave of the child ? Is it wonderful, then, that men, brought up in sight of enslaved human beings, in the habit of treat ing them as chattels, and amidst laws, religious teach ings, and a great variety of institutions, which recognize this horrible claim, should seriously think themselves the owners of their fellow-creatures ! We are sure that they do view the slave as property ; and thus viewing him, they are no more guilty of robbing and stealing, than one of you would be, who, by misapprehension, should ap propriate to himself what belongs to another. And are we authorized to say that there are none at the South, who, if they should discover their misapprehension, would choose to impoverish themselves, rather than live by robbery and crime ? Are all hearts open to our in spection ? Has God assigned to us his prerogative of judgment ? Is it not a violation of the laws of Christian APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 175 charity, to charge on men, whose general deportment shows a sense of justice, such flagrant crimes as robbery and theft ? It is said that, by such allowances to the master, I have weakened the power of what I have writ ten against slavery ; that I have furnished a pillow for the conscience of the slaveholder. But truth is truth, and we must never wink it out of sight for the sake of effect. God needs not the help of our sophistry or exaggeration. For the sake of awakening sensibility, we must not, in our descriptions, add the weight of a feather to the sufferings of the slave, or the faintest shade to the guilt of the master. Slavery indeed, regarded as a vio lation of man's most sacred rights, should always be spoken of by us with the deepest abhorrence ; and we ought not to conceal our fear, that, among those who vindicate it in this free and Christian land, there must be many who wilfully shut their eyes on its wrongs, who are victims of a voluntary blindness, as criminal as known and chosen transgression. Let us speak the truth, and the whole truth, and speak it in the language of strong conviction. But let neither policy nor passion carry us beyond the truth. Let a severe principle of duty, stronger than excitement, watch and preside over all our utter ance." In this relation we cannot refrain from alluding to a paragraph in Mr. De Charms' generally excellent " Views of Freedom and Slavery, in the Light of the New Jerusalem." In this pamphlet he argues very con clusively that African slavery is a civil, political, moral, and spiritual evil ; while, at the same time, he holds that in our Southern States it may not be a sin, but is rather to be regarded as a chronic constitutional disease, which entitles our Southern brethren to our kind consi deration, and imposes on us the duty of co-operation with them in gradually getting rid of it as an hereditary evil. That this proposition is not devoid of truth we are free to admit ; while, at the same time, we are forced to regard it as a truth, so much diluted by the excusatory elements with which it is mixed, as very seriously to prevent any 176 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. erosive effect that it might otherwise have upon the con sciences of those for whom it was, or at least ought to have been, intended. The naked proposition that slavery may not be a sin with our Southern brethren, leaves the matter very much at loose ends, so long as there is no speciflcation of cases and conditions that shall throw light upon the casuistry of the subject. The position may be easily offset by the counter assertion that slavery inay be a sin with slaveholders as well as an evil, and what ad vance is made towards a practical view ofthe truth unless the due discriminations are made, and the parties aided in settling the question for themselves in what cases it is a sin, and in what not ? On this head we consider fhe essay somewhat defective, for we do not perceive that Mr. De Charms' reasoning meets the demands of an awakened conscience, or would be very apt to awaken a sleeping one. We were, in fact, rather surprised to find no more than four pages of the whole work devoted to this particular point, which evidently requires the most elaborate and thorough-going discussion. The substance ofhis argument on this head is contained in the follow ing paragraph : " Slavery, though undoubtedly an evil, may not, in all cases, be a sin. Or, if a sin, may be one which the apostle deems ' not unto death ;' but ¦which may be ' prayed for.' The apostle declares ' all unrighteousness is sin ;' that is, sin consists in all transgression of the divine laws. But, says he, ' there is a sin not unto death.' Doubtless the sin which is unto death is voluntary sin ; and that which is not unto death is in voluntary. The sin of ignorance is involuntary sin. So is the sin of hereditary transmission, so far as it does not become actual evil by one's own irrational volition. Still, both these kinds of involuntary sin, although not unto death, must occasion to the committer of them some degree of penalty. ' The Lord,' says the doctrine of our church, ' re quires no more of a man than that he should do according to what he knows to be true.' The same doctrine is taught by our church in this form : ' Those who know their duty, and not those who are ignorant of it, are the objects of imputation, whether it be of righteousness or of guilt ; just as blind men, when they stumble, are no objects of blame ; for the Lord says — " If ye were blind, ye would have no sin ; but now you say, We see ; therefore your sin remaineth," John ix. 41.' (17. T. 127.) Hence the condemnation and fatality of all sin lie in a man's knowing what is true, and yet willing and acting contrary to it — in 'loving darkness rather than light, because his deeds are evil.' So APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 177 that if a man ' knows his Lord's will, and does things worthy of stripes, he shall be beaten with many stripes.' But, if he ' knows not his Lord's will, and yet does things worthy of stripes, he shall beaten with few stripes.' In both cases a penalty is inflicted ; but in the former a heavy, and in the latter a light one. Hence, if slavery be an evil, all who are implicated in it — even those who are innocently implicated — must suffer in some degree from it. But those who do not know, or believe, it to be wrong, are not condemnable on account of it as sin. Neither are those guilty sinners who have had slavery entailed on them by hereditary transmission. Tet to those who do know, or believe, it to be sinful, the implication of it is indeed a heinous offence both against God and man. For surely not one can doubt that, while volun tary service, or the service of love and therefore of freedom, is supernal, . forced service, or that service which fear renders to imperious master- dom, is infernal. " Now, we cannot believe that slavery in our Southern States is heinously sinful. "We do indeed believe it is an evil ; but we hold it to be an evil mercifnlly permitted, in the divine restorative economy, for an ultimate or final good. What that is, we shall see as we proceed. Or, if Southern slavery be a sin, we are sure it is not one that is unto death. It is a venial transmitted sin. The institution of slavery was entailed upon the Southern States by the mother country's cupidity. Hence we regard it there in the light of an hereditary evil, which re quires much love and wisdom — great prudence, care, patience, and ten der solicitude — in its eradication. It must be regarded as a politically constitutional disease, which can be cured only by time, wise political dietetics, and intelligent skill, exciting the body politic's recuperative energies. All nature is as abhorrent to sudden change as to a vacuum. And the sin of slavery sinks into absolute insignificance in comparison with the egregious sin of those political or morbidly philanthropic quacks, who, by their heroic treatment of this disease — by their sudden alteratives, their decided blood-lettings, their drastic purges, their vio lent counter-irritants, and their other strong remedies — would either kill the patient, or inflict upon his shattered constitution vastly greater and more incurable factitious diseases, if, by some merciful providential fortuity, he should happen to get well in spite of their physic I No true man will he^ forced to do even what is right. And the very worst effect of all objurgatory and even seeming compulsory efforts to destroy the evil of slavery in the South as a damning sin, has been the driving of our Southern brethren into the justification of it as a divine institu tion, and a positive good. Thus do extremes beget extremes." The distinction between sins of ignorance and sins of knowledge is certainly well founded ; but when the author, with a mere whisper of a qualification, puts " the sin of hereditary transmission" into the same category with sins of ignorance, we feel that he disregards a point lb* 178 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND AEOLmON. ofthe utmost moment to a just estimate of the morale of the subject. "Those who do not know or believe it (slavery) to be wrong, are not condemnable on account of it as sin. Neither are those guilty sinners who have had slavery entailed on them by hereditary trans mission." They are not of course made guilty by the simple fact of the entailment ; but it is doing great injus tice to truth to omit to state most' clearly under what circumstances guilt is incurred in such cases. True, we find in a previous sentence a few words of qualification — " The sin of ignorance is involuntary sin. So is the sin of hereditary transmission, so far as it does not be come actual evil of one's own irrational volition." This is every syllable that Ave find in the pamphlet tending to qualify a position which will be very cei'tain to operate as an opiate to the conscience unless guarded by the most explicit statement of qualifications and exceptions. We will, therefore, supply the omission by citing an authority which Mr. De Charms is not prone to un dervalue — " No one ever suffers punishment in another life on account of hereditary evil, because it is not his, consequently he is not blamable for it ; but he suffers punishment on account of actual evil which is his ; so also as by actual life he has appropriated, to himself hereditary evil." — A. C. 2308. This j)uts the matter upon the right basis; and our southern friends can avail themselves justly of the above concessions only so far as they are conscious of this non-appropriation of the evil inheritance bequeathed them by their fathers. But on this score we regret to say that we perceive very, very little evidence that the Southern people, as a body, give any in dications of a state of mind similar to that which elicited the encomiums of an apostle — " For behold this self-same thing, that ye sorrowed, after a godly sort, what careful ness it wrought in you, yea, what cleaning of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement deBire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge ! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter." We fear that the principal gravamen of the wrong-doing APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 179 chargeable upon slave-holders is a refusal to recede from the ways in which their progenitors have walked — a re solute closing of the eyes against the light that would fain visit them — a persistent repellency put forth towards every appeal, however kindly and well meant, addressed to their rational and religious principles — a perpetual process of self-justification — a proneness to resent and treat as impertinent every suggestion implying that a sacred moral duty rests upon every holder of slaves to investigate candidly and thoroughly the genius of the in stitution, and solemnly to repudiate whatever element there is in it of offence towards God, and of injury to wards men. However we may grant that an intemperate and Ishmaelitic zeal may in some cases have character ized the warfare that has been waged against slavery, still even such a spirit in assailants does not nullify the moral potency of the truths which they utter or write, nor warrant the turning a deaf ear to all protestation and admonition addressed by conscious philanthropy to ap prehended oppression, which the men of the south are apt to evince. There is truly such a thing as an unexcep tionable end in the appeals of christian men in the free States to their brethren in the slave States. There is such a thing as a genuinely benevolent concern for the spiritual weal of the parties invoked, and which, in the sight of Heaven, is entitled to a kindly and courteous en tertainment. Such appeals may appear harsh, simply because they probe deep ; but, " faithful are the wounds of a friend." They have for their aim the breaking up of the false calm of a passive, inert, and consenting ac quiescence in a state of things which, beyond all ques tion, and notwithstanding all Divine permission, involves a gross moral evil that imperiously demands a remedy. IV. They have not slavery imputed to them, who acknowledge it to be an evil, and act for the removal of it, socially and politically, according to the laws of order. This is plain from the analogy of the individual 180 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. man, to whom, in the course of reformation and regeneration, his evils are not imputed. We fear that there are those even in the bounds of the New Church who will be very backward to accept the salvo so kindly provided for them in the above aphorism. The non-imputation of slavery as an evil will doubtless be thought very lightly of by those who acknowledge no evil at all in the system. However much of surprise it may occasion, yet the fact is unquestionable, that a con siderable portion of the Southern population, and among them many Newchurchmen, strenuously maintain that slavery is neither a civil, political, or moral evil, and, in fact, that the term evil is in no sense predicable of it, view ed in its essential character. There may be evils of abuse in the practical carrying out of the system, but none in its intrinsic genius. To what extent this view of it is held by Southern N. C. receivers, we are ignorant ; but we find it unequivocally avowed in some of the commu nications addressed to us from that quarter, and a South ern paj)er of late date embodies, no doubt, a large amount of sectional sentiment in the following assertion : •' If slavery cannot be defended on the grounds of its abstract justice, it can have no defence at all worthy of note ; aud no good man can give it defence." We can easily discern the process by which the South is driven to this ultra position, but to us, we are free to say, this has very much the air of a false from evil — of the con firmation of an utterly false principle from the blinding effect of a selfish love. What is the essential genius of slavery ? Is it not the claim of the right of property in a human being ? How was this right acquired ? Was there no evil in the original acquisition ? Was it not effected by lawless might over resisting but powerless weakness ? Was not this all the title which could be pleaded in the first instance for the asserted right ? Has the basis of this right subsequently changed its nature ? Is the right of the possession any different from the right of the acquisition ? If there was an evil in the circum- APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 181 stances in which the black man originally came into the hands of the white man, how and when was that element eliminated from the relation ? In the light of the New Disj^ensation do we not learn that the laws of charity are the standard of evil ? Does charity give its imprimatur to the brand which proclaims a human being transform ed from a freeman to a slave ? If the law of charity did not preside at the first act, how could it preside at any succeeding act of the mancipating process? On this head we have never seen any specimen of slaveholding logic that was not in our view essentially defective. May we ask to be informed how the invasion of the na tive freedom of a human being, and his reduction to bondage against his will, is not a breach of charity ; and if a breach of charity, how it is not an evil ; and if it was an evil in the outset, how it ceases to be an evil in the sequel. That the result is so overruled in the is sue as to be a blessing to the enslaved, we do not ques tion for a moment ; but was this the motive of the origi nal slave-captors on the coast of Africa ? Has any one the hardihood to assert it ? If it were not, how could the act be devoid of evil ? And how can the whole train of sequences, which takes its character from the initia tory step, fail to be tainted with the same vice ? What shall be said to the argument involved in the following paragraph ? " It were humiliating to set about the ^roo/ that the slave system is incompatible with Christianity ; because no man questions its incom patibility who knows what Christianity is, and what it requires. . . Look at the foundation of all the relative duties of man — Benevolence, Love — ^that love and benevolence which is the fulfilling of the moral law — that ' charity' which prompts to acts of kindness, and tenderness, and fellow-feeling for all men. Does he who seizes a person in Guinea, and drags him shrieking to. a vessel, practice this benevolence ? When three or four hundreds have been thus seized, does he who chains them together in a sufibcating hold, practice this benevolence ? When they have reached another shore, does he who gives money to the first for his victims, keeps them as his property, aud compels them to labor for his profit, practice this benevolence ? Would either of these persons think, if their relative situations were exchanged "with the Africans', that the 182 APHORISMS ON SLAVBBY AND ABOLITION. Africans used them justly and kindly ? No. Then the question is de cided. Christianity condemns the system ; and no further inquiry about rectitude remains. The question is as distinctly settled as when a man commits a burglary it is distinctly certain that he has violated the law." — Dymond's Essays, p. 507. The truth is, we feel reluctant to assume an argumen tative attitude towards this position. It is giving it too much significance. The instinct of charity perceives it self instantaneously revolted by the assertion that it is not an evil to deprive a man of his freedom, and to con sign him and his posterity to perpetual bondage. It is a position that no reasoning can legitimate, and one that really damages the cause it is intended to support. Far better would it be for the South to confess the original evil and wrong, and to plant their defence on the ground of its unsolicited and deplored transmission from the men of another generation — an inheritance bringing with it a world of embarrassment as to the true path of duty, as to which, however, they are far, very far, from indif ferent, and if they appear to be tardy in action, that is owing to the practical difficulties which beset every at tempt to apply the proper remedy. Now, these difficul ties, we shall endeavor to show, are by no means in superable, but they are still difficulties, and the South are at full liberty to plead them in reply to the rampant urgency of a zeal of reform which is not according to knowledge. We look upon it as peculiarly unfortunate that the Southern defenders of the institution allow themselves to be driven, by the stress of anti-slavery logic, to so fiimsy a retreat as that of the intrinsic harm- lessness of the central principle of the system. This ground, we believe, was seldom or never taken in the earlier days of slavery, nor do we think it would ever have been resorted to, but for the vigorous onset made by the anti-slavery sentiment of the North. An evil hard pressed is very prone to betake itself to a falsity for refuge. For ourselves, therefore, we are disposed to take it for granted that there is, in fact, a latent conscious ness of an intrinsic evil adhering to the system, and not APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 183 only so, but that this feature of it is a source of earnest and anxious thought with conscientious men of the South, who find themselves sustaining the relation, and who would devoutly desire to acquit themselves to the approba tion of the Searcher of hearts. To all such the proposition ofthe aphorism will not have the air of a gratuitous moral izing. They will respectfully consider the laws which go vern the Divine estimate of evil, and they will agree with us that the acknowledgment on this score which shall secure the non-imputation of slavery as a sin, must needs be something more than a mere general, lax, or matter of course assenting to the proposition which affirms it as an evil. A man may make his verbal acknowledgment, while at the same time he loses sight of his own agency in the matter, and thinks of it solely as an evil predica ble of the community at large. Nay, he may even, while inwardly favoring it in his heart, practise a certain ruse upon his conscience by such an acknowledgment, and secretly fancy that he atones for the evil by confess ing it. But, plainly, such an acknowledgment amounts to nothing. It must be a sincere, thorough-going recog nition of one's own personal agency in upholding the system, coupled with a course of positive action tending directly, however gradually, to do away what he pro fesses to deplore. This is doubtless implied in the words of the Aphorism, but it may be well to reiterate it, as the subtlety of the corrupt heart of man is such that he will even make the testimony which his moral nature compels him to bear to right, a cloak for the persistent continuance in the very wrong which he would fain per suade himself he abhors. The remaining clause of the Aphorism undoubtedly sets forth an analogy pertinent to the case before us, and one which is strongly confirmatory of the ground we have assumed above. In individual regeneration the great desideratum is conscious sincerity, simplicity, and honesty of aim. When this is present, and the soul is pressing on to high and pure attainments, the evils of which it is struggling to divest itself are not imputed to 184 APHORISMS ON SLA"VERY AND ABOLITION. it, nor can they prevent a final felicitous issue. So in the case before us. If the slaveholder gives moral prin ciple fair play, and truly and sincerely labors to ascer tain what the Lord would have him to do in the circum stances, and is willing to go counter to his apparent' worldly interest, and make sacrifices for the sake of truth and righteousness, then he may assure himself that the evil he may have formerly countenanced is not imputed to him, and he may present an unruffled brow to all re proaches and vilifications. But men thus prompted will not take it ill to be reminded that subtleties and sophis tries, the offspring of a perverted proprium, will scarcely fail to cloud their perceptions, and warp their judgment, when they come to grapple in earnest with the problem that presses upon thera. One law of Divine order is, that evils must not be removed sudden ly, and that if the attempt be made, worse evils arise. The law ap plies to public or national evils, as well as to those of the individual. We question not that a very important truth is em bodied in this paragraph, albeit we should have preferred the phraseology which we see from the manuscript was originally adopted — " that evils cannot be removed sud denly." Language implying prohibition in regard to the sudden removal of evil, is stronger than the nature of the case admits, and is calculated to lead to wrong impressions. At any rate we do not find this language countenanced by Swedenborg, as his phraseology is very uniformly cannot instead of must not. This will appear from a few paragraphs which we insert, and to which we give place the more readily from the fact that they de velop the philosophy of the principle in a very beautiful and striking manner. " Man is not hastily but slowly regenerated ; because all things which he had thought, had intended, and done from infancy, have added them selves to his life, and have made it, and also have formed such a connexion amongst each other, that one cannot APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 185 be moved away unless all are moved away together with it. Hence, it is evident that evils and falses with an evil man, cannot be removed suddenly, but so far as goods and truths are imiDlanted in their order and interiorly, for heaven removes hell from man. If this was to be suddenly, the man would be defective, for all and singu lar things which are in connexion and form would be dis turbed, and violence would be done to his life." — {A. C. 9334.) " Goods and truths should remove evils and falses by successive implantations ; for falses are not remova ble except by truths, nor evils except by goods ; if this is not done successively and according to order, the falses which favor those loves flow in, and from the delight of those loves the man concludes nothing but falses, if the falses of evil are suddenly removed." — {A. C. 9335.) " Man, when he is born, as to hereditary evils is a hell in the least form ; hence it is that the order of his life from nativity and from actual life is opposite to the order of heaven. The former life, therefore, which is of hell, must be altogether destroyed, that is, evils and falses must be removed, to the intent that new life, which is the life of heaven, may be implanted. This cannot in anywise be done hastily ; for every evil being inrooted with its falses, has connection with all evils and their falses ; and such evils and falses are innumerable, and their connection is so manifold that it cannot be compre hended, not even by the angels, but only by the Lord ; hence it is evident that the life of hell with man cannot be destroyed suddenly, for if suddenly, he would alto gether expire : and that neither can the life of heaven be implanted suddenly, for if suddenly, he would also expire." — {A. C. 9336.) This, then, develops the gene ral law of procedure in regard to the removal of evils ; but it evidently requires great caution to guard against the perversion of the principle. It is perverted if we make use of it as a plea to countenance the continu ance of any positive act, or series of acts, of evil, when their true character is made known to us. Every such act is to be at once renounced, and we are to enter upon 17 186 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. a course of reformation as if the final effect would im mediately follow, whereas we know it will not, for the evil love which has originated the evil acts will be cer tain to survive for some time after the acts have ceased. Nevertheless, it is our bounden duty to commence at once that course of action which will result in the fimal abolition of every form of evil, leaving it to the opera tion of the laws of Providence to extinguish in due time the inward prompting to everything that is amiss. The fact is, the language of Swedenborg on this head is not so much to suggest a rule of duty for us as a law of Provi dence, founded upon the constitution of things. It is rather a declaration of what the laws of order imply, than of a course of action by which we are to be guided. The intemperate man, for instance, who sees the evil of indulgence, is bound at once to abandon his cups, though he does it under the moral certainty that the appetite may remain to trouble him for a long time to come. But on this head he is not required to be very solicitous. This part of the consequences will take care of itself. Let the drinking cease, and the thirst will gradually die away. " Where no wood is, the fire goeth out." So in the case before us. There is undoubtedly something which is immediately incumbent upon the conscientious slaveholder, while at the same time we are fully persuaded there are some steps bearing on the final issue which are not at once to be taken, as it would be a rash precipitating of dangerous results, and contrary to the order of Providence. What is at once to be done, and what to be temporarily forborne in the premises, will appear as we proceed. We do not differ from A. E. F. as to the fact of the providential law to which he refers, as the sequel will show, but we fear that the lan guage of inhibition which he employs may lead to wrong inferences, and paralyze that measure and form of effort which is called for by the principles of charity without the least delay. VL This law is violated with less impunity, in proportion as the evil to APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 187 be removed is more interior. The sign that a public or national evil is interior is, that it is recognized, sanctioned, and established by the laws. Thus, intemperance is a less interior evil than slavery, because though it prevails, it is not, or not to the same degree, sanctioned by law. The " law" here spoken of is that which forms the sub ject of the preceding aphorism, to wit : " that evils must not be removed suddenly." We have endeavored to show that this is not so much to be viewed as a prohibi tory precept by which our duty is to be determined, as the statement of a fact or a principle which obtains in the regenerating process as governed by the laws of or der, and is therefore not so much a law liable to be vio lated, as a principle liable to be disregarded, and this it no doubt may be, much to the injury of great moral in terests. This injury, the writer thinks, Avill be apt to be greater in proportion as an evil is more interior, or, in other words, more deeply and organically inwrought in the usages, institutes, and legal enactments of any com munity. Consequently, he would deprecate the sudden breaking up of the system, as by law established, lest still more pernicious results might ensue, a general view of the subject which we deem correct. An abrupt and violent rending away, however, of this feature of the civil code, is one thing, and a calm, deliberate, but still immediate inchoation of measures that shall eventually bring about that issue is another. We see nothing that stands in the way of conscience or wisdom in the resolve t9 enter at once upon the incipiency of an emancipating process, and when this is done in earnest, we have no fears that the right result will not follow. This we con ceive to be the legitimate course in all cases of acknowl edged evil, whether interior or exterior. Assuredly, if men are involved in the support of such an evil, and have their eyes open to the fact, and are with all anxious to free themselves from it, there must be some way of ex trication, for it is inconceivable that any man, or any class of men, should be shut up by the insuperable bars ofthe Divine Providence to the necessity of continuing in such 188 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. a predicament. There must be some " outgate" for him who would escape. An irrevocable necessity of wrong doing can be imposed upon no man in this world. If any law, usage, or institution be intrinsically wrong, it can not be right to continue it ; consequently, with those who have been its abettors, there is of necessity some duty of renunciation incumbent as soon as they are convinced of the evil of their agency, past or present, in sustaining it. Nor is any individual exempted from this duty, be cause he is associated by civil or religious ties with others who do not sympathize with him in his convictions, and who therefore withhold co-operation. He has some share in the general action of the collective body in per petuating the evil, and this share he is bound to re nounce, and to labor by protest and moral suasion to bring his associates to unite with him in sentiment and action, with a view to its final abrogation. Upon this point it is hardly possible to insist too urgently, that the individual is never at liberty so far to merge himself in the state as to forbear acting in the redress of evils till the state itself takes the initiative. The demands of an enlightened conscience press themselves directly upon the man as responsible first of all to the " higher law" of his God, irrespective of his relations to the state, and call upon him to renounce and abjure that measure of agency which may pertain to him as an originator or continuator of the legalized system of wrong which is brought into question. It is in our view all important that in urging the claims of abolitionism upon Southern slaveholders we should plant ourselves distinctly upon this ground. Our appeal should be made to the individual rather than to the community. The community cannot be expected to act as a community till the component members are indivi dually convinced of their duty in the premises. The units are prone to hide themselves in the aggregate, as did Saul among the " stuff," but when drawn out each one will scarcely fail to be conscious that on the score of moral responsibility, he is " from the shoulders and up- APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLmON. 189 wards," at least as high as " any of the people." This responsibility he can by no means evade ; but in what particular form it is to be exercised, and under what special qualifications the slaveholder is to heed the sum mons to emancipation, will be more fully considered in what follows. VII. By the two preceding aphorisms an immediate emancipation of slaves is so far from being the true remedy of the evil, and a duty im posed by the Christian religion, that it is a false remedy forbidden by Ctoistianity. , This surely is very strong language, nor are we by any means prepared to assent to it without a close inspection of its purport. Tet, as in nearly every one of the aphor isms, so in this likewise, we recognize a substratum of truth which we are not at all disposed to question, but a truth that needs, in our view, to undergo somewhat of a process of logical smelting in order to bring out the pure metal freed from all vicious adherences. It will not, we presume, be denied that in every case of moral wrong there is an opposite and corresponding right. If slavery, i. e., slaveholding, as generally defined and practised, be in reality a wrong done to the neighbor, then if we can ascertain the act or conduct which is precisely the re verse of this, we may doubtless take it for granted that we have hit upon the requisite right which is the true remedy for the wrong in question. If a certain disease is to be cured, and there is a particular medicine which is a genuine specific for that disease, that surely is the medicine which should be administered to the patient. Let us apply this principle in the present case. The two terms, mancipation (from manu, and capio, taking with the hand) and e-mancipation, imply ideas directly the converse of each other, the one denoting the act of re ducing to bondage, the other the act of freeing from bondage. Now, surely, if the former term denotes an act which is intrinsically wrong, and the latter an act directly contrary to it, and therefore intrinsically right, 17* 190 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. there can be no doubt that emancipation is the true remedy for its opposite evil, and consequently, that this is precisely the remedy which Christianity enjoins. Are not the two things just as obversely opposite to each other as theft and restitution ; and does Christianity prescribe to the conscience any other remedy for theft than restitu tion, accompanied by repentance ? But the aphorism before us points its censure, not at emancipation in the abstract, but at immediate emanci pation ; and this it professes to regard as a false and for bidden remedy for an incontestable evil. This then be- becomes the grand question in debate, and we venture to say that this can never be satisfactorily settled, with out first settling clearly and distinctly the true idea of the essence of slavery, and of the essence of emancipa tion. To this end we remark, that if slavery be admit ted to be in itself an evil, then there must be incumbent an immediate duty of some kind in relation to it, for no evil is to be quietly acquiesced in for a moment. What is that duty ? What can it be, but the sincere mental renunciation of the principle which lies at the founda tion of the system of involuntary slavery, to wit : the claim of a right of property in a human being, or the right of converting a man into a chattel. This is the radical vice — the fundamental falsity — -the central wrong of the whole system. Upon a strict analysis it is pre cisely here — in the mental assertion of a false and in jurious principle — that the essential evil of servitude con centrates itself It is the laying claim to a right which is itself a nullity. No such right ever did or could ex ist. A human being can, by no rightful process, be so far dehumanized as to sink him to an object of owner ship and an article of merchandise. The fact that such a right has been long asserted and exercised, imparts to it no validitv. It is simply by a legal fiction that such possession is termed, property, and under that denomina tion transmitted from father to son. In the nature of the case the title of subsequent tenure can be no other than that of original acquisition. The stream cannot rise APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. 191 higher than its fountain. The slave captors in Africa coul^gplead no title to their prey other than that of law less violence, and a mastery too strong for its victims. Consequently, what they had not, they could not con vey. We must be excused for speaking plainly on this subject, for the scope of our argument requires it. We are aiming to ascertain the point of duty on a subject which appeals with pressing ui'gency to the moral in stincts of the conscientious man, and this point we can never reach without penetrating the intrinsic merits or demerits of the theme. Let us, then, be aUowed to say, that we are for ourselves forced to subscribe to the jus tice of the sentiments propounded in the following ex tract from " Dymond's Essays on Morality." " The distinctions which are made between the origi nal robbery in Africa, and the purchase, the inheritance, and the ' breeding' of slaves, do not at all respect the kind of immorality that attaches to the whole system. They respect nothing but the degree. The man who wounds and robs another on the highway, is a more atrocious offender than he who plunders a hen-roost; but he is not more h-idy an ofiender, he is not more certainly a violator of the law. And so with the slave system. He who drags a wretched man from his family in Africa, is a more fiagitious transgressor than he who merely compels the African to labor for his own advan tage ; but the transgression, the immorality is as real and certain in the one case as in the other. He who had no right to steal the African, had none to sell him. From him who is known to have no right to sell, another can have no right to buy or to possess. Sale, or gift, or legacy, imparts no right to me, because the seller, or giver, or bequeather, had none himself The sufferer has just as valid a claim to liberty at my hands as at the hands of the ruffian who first dragged him from his home. Every hour of every day, the present possessor is guilty of injustice.* Nor is the case altered with re- * We would here interpose a qualifying clause. We can accept the pro position as above stated only with the understanding that the possession is 192 APHORISMS ON SLAVERY AND ABOLITION. spect to those who are born on a 'man's estate. The parents were never the landholder's property, and