into an exact and liberal narrative of futurity—a prophetic relation, in part accomplished. The New Jerusalem is localized; the Judgment Day is identified with a past epoch. Parable is considered synonymous with matter of fact history. A wise man often discovers the most wisdom in letting some things alone; in leaving moot points at rest. Swedenborg could not abstain from a rash curiosity of gazing upon the Holy of Holies; he must needs intrude into the awful precincts of the Apocalypse. And here in his daring rashness, he evinced equal folly.

His visions, and publications of an intercourse with the spiritual world, are of a piece with the rest. It is painful to see the state into which that man's mind must have fallen, who could write out such accounts as we find in Lecture xii. (pages 415, 416-418, in particular.) We are almost tempted to exclaim,

Lo! what a noble mind was here o'erthrown!

Had Swedenborg lived a century earlier, he would have been cited as a memorable instance in old Burton's chapter on Religious melancholy. A few sentences will comprise all the criticism on the Lectures we have to offer. Mr. De Charms is the clearest writer: Mr. Barrett is more ambitious and flowery. Both are sensible thinkers, yet fall into gross blunders whenever they attempt to exalt their Hero and Master. A rather presumptuous parallel is here drawn. "We would therefore beg all who are disposed to ridicule and reject the writings of Swedenborg, on account of the alleged visions which they contain, to pause and consider, whether they do not, in their hearts, if not with their lips, mock at the views of the Apostles and Prophets, and reject

the Scriptures as a revelation from God." We can, by no supposition, conceive how a rejection of Swedenborg's mission, invalidates the genuineness of the Scriptures, or can presuppose such invalidation.

The followers of this fanciful theorist (for as such, in the History of Religion, the character of Swedenborg, we suspect, will finally rest) are, in the majority of cases, pureminded and honest men; in some cases guided by a poetical temperament in the choice of a religion; in others, governed by the specious "rationality" of the Swedenborgian scheme. Very few eminent men are numbered in its ranks. Dr. Hartley, the metaphysician, we believe, was one; Kant appears to have been, and Coleridge was for a while attracted by Swedenborgianism, as indeed he was by every current fashionable novelty, and curious ancient heresy. American would-be Coleridges assume the doctrines, as a fair text for imposing rhetoric. It must be allowed, as we have admitted more than once, that parts of the teachings of the Swedish Apostle are imbued with the loftiest Christian morality; that his spirit bathed in an atmosphere of the purest refinement; that he saw keenly into much of the spiritual part of our nature. Here we stop in our eulogium. As a moralist, Swedenborg is above our praise; as a religious teacher, a biblical critic, an expounder of mysteries, we regard him as unsafe, dangerous, and rash. His sect is still very small, and its polity being nearer to the Congregational form of Church government than to any other, tends continually to independency, and disunion among its members. It is without an abiding principle of unity; and its excessive spirit of liberty is liable to run into licentiousness of doctrine. In Sweden there are very few of this belief; more in England and on the continent. In this country they have several

congregations but we apprehend no stability in Swedenborgianism as a Church; but that it will gradually die out like the Quakers and the Unitarians. Still, the Church may derive excellent hints from some of the strictures of Swedenborg; and, indeed, from more than one of the spiritual Christian philosophers of modern Europe.

XVI.

RELIGIOUS SATIRE.

MANY well-intentioned, but not very deep-thinking people, are mightily frightened by anything approaching to the argumentum ad absurdum, in matters of religion or morality. They fancy a disrespect, at least, if not a secret contempt of Christianity from satirical assaults on those who profess, only to disgrace it. They apprehend evil from the air of levity with which such subjects are treated; an apprehension rarely verified, except in the case of the very weak, who are sure to go wrong in almost every possible event. No man but a fool or a radically bad character, ever could conceive of universal hollowness, because there were many demure and sly hypocrites in the world. A total want of faith is the unerring sign of a temper not to be trusted; of a fickle heart and a false tongue. But satire of the pretenders to true religion is, in effect, an eulogy of the sincerely good; indiscriminate praise and universal censure being alike in this respect, that finally they tend to nothing, as they nullify each other by

opposite extravagances. It is true, that satirists have sometimes transcended the proper limits of truth and discretion; have calumniated where they should have calmly censured; and have written a libel instead of a criticism. The most piquant satire is, necessarily, one-sided, and carried to the extreme verge of truth; at times overpassing it. Epigrams lose in point where they approach the truth. A moderate thinker is rarely to be found among professed wits. For, when a man comes to ponder and weigh opposite qualities and conflicting statements, to admit this excuse and allow that apology, when circumstance and occasion are considered; and, in a word, when he endeavors to strike a just balance of the actions and characters of men, he rarely can escape a trite conclusion or a mediocrity of argument. In a knowledge of most elementary truths and general propositions, the philosopher and the peasant are on a par; the difference between them consists in a knowledge of the intermediate chain of thought and reasoning on the part of the first, and ignorance in the case of the last. It is only when a point is driven home, when to paint one trait vividly, the rest of the features are thrown in the shade, that brilliancy is attained at the expense of fidelity and a liberal construction. To a reader. of sense, however, a defect of this nature makes itself apparent at once, and he sifts out the false from the fair to all other readers it matters little, for they might misconstrue the most irreproachable writer. We have frequent proof that the best book in the world has fared the worst in this respect.

Religious satire has generally been directed either against the extravagances or the hypocrisy of reformers; and when just and intelligent, it has certainly been of essential service. It may not benefit the immediate objects of it. It may harden or dishearten proselytes and late converts, re-changing

the self-styled elect into viler sinners than they were before; but it is productive of benefit to those who are not intimately connected with either any specific reformation itself or those conducting it.

The very idea of undertaking to convert the world, at the present time of day, discovers, in him who cherishes it, a palpable defect of judgment and common precaution, and will induce compassion where it does not provoke ridicule. Such innovators appear to forget how much benefit may be accomplished by the thorough performance of individual duties, to say nothing of every man's natural and (as it were) hereditary influence in his own walk and circle of society, which may be turned to the best account possible. They leave the obvious and natural claims of their Maker, their own souls, and their fellow-creatures, for the vain prosecution of fantastic projects. Like the alchemist, they think they possess a talisman, unknown to all others, for converting sinners; a talisman, that too often fails in its pretended effects when employed upon themselves.

To say that no good has accrued to society from zealous yet prudential reformation, is to assert what is palpably false; yet to conceal the great evils incurred by rash innovation and ignorant fanaticism, would be avoiding a fair statement of the case. The greatest of Reformers, Time, as we are wisely taught by Bacon, innovates silently, but is more powerful than any other. We see in the life of man, how age reveals the errors of youth, and manhood suppresses the follies of immaturity. So in the age of the world, civilization and custom must unite to eradicate (by degrees) the defects, the vices, the crimes of former ages. If the above is true of matters relating to the civil polity, to legislation and government, how much truer is it with regard to the growth and