means of Swedenborg's inquiries. Instances of this kind were not frequent in his life; but had they been much more so than they were, there are equally strange things related of clairvoyants, which we are not concerned to account for, as we have no knowledge of the laws which regulate the spirit world, and are, therefore, content to leave them amongst the deep things which pass our apprehension in this present world, and into which it profits us not to seek.

It is enough for us that Swedenborg's revelations must be rejected as a delusion and a dream, as being utterly inconsistent with all that God has told us in the Bible. No external testimony of their truth is pretended; and as for the internal evidence it repels, instead of attracting, assent. How low, and mean, and contemptible is Swedenborg's idea of Heaven, compared with that which is foreshadowed in the Apocalypse. The Swedenborgian system is but an ill-disguised pantheism, which can never satisfy the heart that is athirst after GOD. What soul that has tasted the sweetness of GOD's love would believe that GOD is not to be loved as a person, but only His qualities, as they exist in our fellow-creatures? which is to transfer to the creature the honour due unto the Creator. For the pure in heart, what charm does a sensual paradise possess? For the weary, what would be the prospect of rest, if the next world were but a counterpart of this, with a repetition of all its cares, temptations, and frivolities? What would be the sinner's hope, if the atonement on the cross must be banished from his creed? Swedenborg's system may be something better than Mormonism, this is the best we can say of it; but to combat it as a rival to Christianity would be to treat it with an importance to which it has no claim.

But Swedenborg believed his delusions to the last. His time was divided between conferences with spirits, and writing, with wearisome repetition, the revelations which were made to him. At Stockholm he lived in a house of his own, where he received with courtesy all who called on him; whilst during his visits to London he occupied lodgings in various parts of the city. He was in London in 1771, when a stroke of apoplexy deprived him of his speech and lamed one side. He knew, his biographer tells us, the time of his approaching death, for he wrote to Wesley, telling him that he had been informed in the world of spirits that he had a desire to see him, and therefore requesting a visit. Wesley was just starting on a six months' journey, and wrote in reply that he would call on Swedenborg when he returned. Swedenborg rejoined that the proposed visit would be too late, as he should enter the spiritual world on the 29th of March following. He still believed, as he told Springer, the Swedish consul, that although no mortal could declare the time, the New Jerusalem would manifest itself to all the world.

On his death-bed he received the Holy Communion, from Ferelius, a Swedish clergyman, saying that, although being a member of the other world, he did not need it, he partook of it to show the intimate connection between the Church in Heaven and the Church on earth. He told his friends the day of his death, and on the 29th of March, 1772, when the clock struck five, he asked his landlady what o'clock it was, and when she told him it was five, "It is well," he said, "I thank you-God bless you," and then in a moment he gently expired. He was buried in the Swedish Church, in Princes Square, where although the sanctity of his grave has thrice been violated by the intrusion of impertinent curiosity, no monument was erected to his memory until 1857.

The few followers that he had were accustomed for some time afterwards to meet together for the perusal of their master's writings. Flaxman the sculptor, Hindmarsh a Methodist preacher, and Gilpin, curate to Fletcher of Madely, were amongst those who professed to believe in Swedenborg. They did not at first form themselves into a sect, but when they did, their history became like that of other sects; discords arose and each one strove for the mastery. The history of the Swedenborgians, as a sect, contains nothing peculiar to itself, and therefore we need not follow it. the present day, according to Mr. Horace Mann's statements, it is said to number 10,000 in England and Wales. Mr. White gives us a list of its more eminent adherents, in which we find the intelligence of the sect represented by a Q.C., the ingenious editor of the "Phonetic Nüz," if such a periodical still exists, a clergyman without cure of souls, a female novelist, the author of a spellingbook, one F.R.S., and an American sculptor.

It may be observed that the Swedenborgians disown the spiritualists as interfering with their Prophet's monopoly, but it would be easy to show, if we had space, how many of the theories and doctrines of the spiritualists have been borrowed from the dreams of Swedenborg. Both may be met with the same weapons, since both arise from the same origin, and we cannot conclude this article in words which apply more truly to both, than in those of the learned and philosophic Moehler.

"The translations of Swedenborg's writings find, as we hear, a very great sale in and out of Germany, and the number of his followers daily

1 Spiritualism, like Swedenborgianism, pretends to provide a new and better gospel, and to give men more practical rules for life, by admitting them to see the consequences of their actions on the life to come; but the rewards promised, like those of Swedenborg, are of a gross and sensual nature. It differs only from Mormonism in that whilst that allows a free indulgence to the fleshly appetites here, this promises freedom from all restraint, and perfect gratification of every carnal desire in the life to come, as the reward of a good and honest life. It is scarcely needful to say that the wonders of spiritualism banish all that is supernatural in religion; it deprives CHRIST of all honour both as GOD and SAVIOUR, and denies the benefit of His atonement.

increases. This we can perfectly understand. The unadorned Gospel, the simplicity of the Church's doctrine, are no longer capable of exciting an age so spiritually enervated like our own. Truth must be set forth in glaring colours, and represented in gigantic proportions, if we hope to stimulate and stir the souls of this generation. The infinite void and obtuseness of religious feeling in our time, when it cannot grasp spirits by the hand, and see them daily pass before it, is incapable of believing in a higher spiritual world; and the fancy must be startled by the most terrific images, if the hope of prolonging existence in a future world is not entirely to be extinguished. Long enough was the absurd as well as deplorable endeavour made to banish miracles from the Gospel history; to undermine with insolent mockery the belief in the next manifestation of the SON of GOD; to call in question all living intercourse between the Creator and the creature; and to inundate nations with the most shallow systems of morality; for these followed in the wake of such anti-Christian efforts. But the yearning soul of man is not to be satisfied with such idle talk; and when you take from it true miracles, it will then invent false ones. Our age is doomed to witness the desolate spectacle of a most joyless languor, and impotence of the spiritual life, by the side of the most exaggerated and sickly excitement of the same; and if we do not, with a living and spiritual feeling, return to the doctrine of the Church, we shall soon see the most wretched fanaticism obtain the same ascendancy, as we saw the most frivolous unbelief established on the throne. But by such phenomena will no one be conducted to the faith acceptable unto GOD; and the answer which in the Gospel (S. Luke xvi. 19) that luxurious, hardhearted, rich man received from Abraham, when he begged him to send Lazarus to his brethren, to the end that they might be converted, may perfectly apply to Swedenborg's followers, when they hold that the world needs a visionary, in order to bring it back to the truth, and will be found to contain a valid testimony against their prophet. We have Moses and the prophets, and now also we have CHRIST and the Apostles, and the Church; and when we hear not these, we shall give no ear to him, who pretends to give us tidings from the other world. With these words alone, hath CHRIST annihilated all expectations, which might attach to Swedenborg's visions."-Moehler's Symbolism, Vol. II. p. 316.

A DISSENTER'S TESTIMONY TO CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IN THE PRAYER BOOK.

Micah, the Priest-Maker. A Hand-book on Ritualism. By T. BINNEY. 2nd edition. London: Jackson, Walford and Co. 1867.

Ir is very advantageous to us to hear sometimes what those outside of the community to which we belong, say of us and of our doings; more especially when the writer or speaker is impartial,

and has taken real pains to acquaint himself with the subject. Speaking generally, we may fairly say that Mr. Binney is impartial, and has studied the matter on which he writes.

We must, however, object to the terms in which this gentleman describes himself; he says he is a non-conforming member of the Church of England. This, we need hardly say, is a contradiction in terms, not very different from a Fenian "Centre" calling himself a citizen of Great Britain. Mr. Binney has so far revolted against the Church, of which he professes himself to be a member, as to preside over a meeting-house, where services are conducted, if not in hostility to the Church, at least, in opposition to it. He has revolted from the national religion, and set up a little religious republic in somebody's parish, where he has gathered adherents who join in that revolt. Yet he and his adherents claim to interfere, when it pleases them, in the religious body they have left. But let this pass.

We need hardly say that the title to the book has very little to do with its contents: Mr. Binney tells us that Micah was a Ritualist, because he set up a certain kind of worship in his house; and on this peg he hangs his work. That work professes to be an examination of the legal position which Ritualists maintain is their right in the Church. Mr. Binney says very little on the question of Scriptural authority, and very judiciously; for a Protestant views the Bible from such a very different stand-point from a Catholic, that his conclusions cannot have much weight with us.

The legal point of view Mr. Binney has more carefully studied, and he has evinced an impartiality which we wish were more often shown by Low Church members of the Church. He understands plainly enough the doctrine that the Holy Eucharist is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, a continuation and an application of the one great Sacrifice, not a fresh sacrifice in itself; this is a point which Low Church men cannot or will not see. instance, Canon McNeile at a lecture in Gloucester actually made use of the following language, though he had "The Church and the World" in his hand. He is reported in the papers to have said:

For

"But our brethren allege that the priests of the New Testament offer CHRIST always in connection with what they call the Eucharistic Sacrifice. They call this the unbloody sacrifice for sin. But that is a contradiction in terms; because the blood is the life, and the sacrifice for sin is the taking away of the life. It is vain to attempt to retain the reality of sacrifice and yet to deny the reality of death. The language of the Church of Rome betrays this. The word by which they express the act of offering is immolare, to kill, and the word by which they express the thing offered is hostia, a victim. words expressive of inflicting death. Let our friends tell us where they join issue with Rome-let them tell us, do they immolate our

These are

blessed LORD and SAVIOUR in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and do they hold Him up to adoration as a victim? Do they inflict death or not? If not, there is no sacrifice for sin. If they say 'Yes,' our answer is in the language of the Apostle-CHRIST being raised from the dead dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over Him; for in that He died He died unto sin once, but in that He liveth He liveth unto GOD.' Who then are they who presume to offer Him again? Canon McNeile quoted words from The Church and the World setting forth that the most holy body and blood of CHRIST were offered-that was, continually presented and pleaded. There, he said, was the fallacy. They were not offered. The typical high priest offered no sacrifice in the holy place: he took the blood with him, but he shed no blood there. The value of the sacrifice was there; but there was no sacrifice present. So on earth-we had the value of the sacrifice, but not the sacrifice."

Mr. Binney, throughout his whole book, has never distorted the doctrine of Catholics as Dr. McNeile has in this passage, has never put doctrines into their mouths, which they disclaim. On the contrary, he always tries, at least, to do them justice. Let us take one of his early statements.

"While then we say all that we have said, and stand by it-holding to our argument against advanced ornate significant Ritualism,-yet it is right to acknowledge that the subject has its favourable side. With all its underlying errors, Ritualism has not been without its use.

"If it be right that there should be places of public worship,-that numbers should meet together for common prayer and sacramental communion; if the meetings of the pious are not to be confined to a few people in 'an upper room,' or the order of service left to the actings of an open 'impulsive ministry,'-it must be right and proper that the sacred edifice should be regarded with reverence, and that the mode of procedure, in all that is done, should at once awaken and aid devotion. In many churches, it is said, things had fallen into neglect. The people dwelt in ceiled houses, but the house of GOD lay waste.' Dirt and cobwebs, and worse things disfigured the building; slovenly habits were fallen into, in his dress and doings, by the minister. Now with all that we condemn in the extreme pretensions of the advanced Ritualists, it is to be acknowledged that they have done much to awaken a spirit, which has promoted many improvements in their own community, and which has not been without its influence on others. If the masses of the people are to be got into our churches, that they may learn the way of peace, be turned from their wickedness and live,' it is right that the aspect of things should be such as to invite and attract rather than repel.”—P. 55.

Again:

"The situation, structure, and internal appearance of a place of worship may have more to do with real religious results than many imagine. I have known a chapel so hemmed in, dull and cheerless, that nothing would induce people to enter it. I have known the