44

KINGS AND TYRANTS.

' of wisdom, who fear God'*-a maxim none will dispute, but which we should gladly have enlarged with a recipe for the selection of such Rulers and their maintenance in office.

6

'Since the King cannot by himself administer all things, 'he has to find deputies,† and lest any of them from caprice or ignorance should sanction what is contrary to order, they are arranged as superior and inferior officers, so that one may serve to check another.'‡

'The law, which is justice' [often enough injustice] 'when enacted ought to be observed by the King and by 'his subjects. The King, who lives according to the laws ' and therein sets an example to his subjects, is truly a 'King.

The King who is invested with absolute power and 'who considers his people such slaves that he has a right 'to their property and lives, and who exercises such imaginary right, is a tyrant and no King.'§—Very true.

Very true; but as to what is the duty of subjects in such a case, Swedenborg yields no light. Would he have lent his sanction to the sacred right of insurrection?' That he did not harbour any notion of hereditary claim to kingship irrespective of conduct, would appear from his assertion, that'sovereignty is not in any person, but is 'annexed to the person,' and that the King who identifies 'himself with the law (which is justice) arrogates to himself 'what is Divine, and to which he ought to be in subjection.'

In a similar strain of bland dogmatism he treats of Ecclesiastical Government

'Governors appointed over those things among Men 'which relate to Heaven, are called Priests, and their office 'the Priesthood.

'The duty of Priests is to teach Men the way to Heaven

*Nos. 313 and 323.

† No. 320.

No. 313.

2 Nos. 323 and 324.

Nos. 321-22.

THE IMPOSSIBLE DISSENTER.

45

' and to lead them therein. They are to teach them accord'ing to the Doctrine of their Church, which is derived 'from the Word, and to lead them to live according to that 'Doctrine. Priests who teach true doctrine and lead their 'flocks thereby to goodness of life, and so to the Lord, are 'the good shepherds spoken of in the Word; but those who ' only teach, and do not lead, are the bad shepherds.

'The Ministers of the Church ought not to claim to 'themselves any power over the Souls of Men, inasmuch as 'they cannot discern the real state of the interiors or the 'heart much less ought they to claim the power of 'opening and shutting Heaven, because that power belongs 'to the Lord alone.

'In matters of faith, they ought not to use compulsion, 'since no one can be compelled to believe contrary to what 'he thinks in his heart to be true. He who differs in 'opinion from the Minister ought to be left in the quiet 'enjoyment of his own sentiments, provided he make no 'disturbance if he disturbs the peace of the Church he ( must be separated; for this is consistent with the order for 'the sake of which the Priesthood is established.'*

Such soothsaying reads pleasantly enough: it is only when pressed to a practical application that its emptiness appears. Priests are to suffer dissent if the dissenter keeps quiet, but if he proves troublesome, then he is to be separated. It is difficult to imagine to what condition of society such a direction could usefully apply. Where are the Priests so forbearing? Where the dissenters, not disturbers? Where the earnest heretic, who cares a straw though all the Priests of Christendom should separate and curse him in chorus? When the Church could prosecute a dissenter to prison and to death, excommunication had a meaning; but when as now, deprived of teeth and claws, the Church can

Nos. 316 and 318.

46

THE CHURCH DISARMED.

only scold, the anathemas shot forth at a Strauss, a Renan, or a Colenso, merely provoke ridicule, and yield fresh impulse to the activity of the proscribed. Swedenborg failed to perceive how the diffusion of knowledge throughout society was gradually swamping the distinction between Clergy and Laity—he himself, late Assessor of Mines, being a signal example thereof. The times had changed since an author would have had to expiate the novelties of an 'Arcana Coelestia' at the stake; but though Swedenborg was a prodigious gainer by the liberal revolution, he laboured under an obscure impression that Authority and Liberty were reconcileable: hence the suggestion we have just read of toleration in the Priest and quiescence in the Dissenter, and the occasional dropping of such sentences as these

'In Kingdoms where justice and judgement are preserved, every one is restrained from speaking and acting against Religion.

'It is right that Men be forced or restrained by threats ' and punishments from speaking ill of the Laws of a 'Kingdom, the Morals of Life, and the Sanctities of the 'Church.'*

When the Clergy and the Learned were synonymous it was possible to treat the Laity as children, but since common education has obliterated the distinction, the Priest has had to exchange the character of father for that of brother, and whether he date from Rome or Canterbury he has to deal as with equals in evidence and argument. For a Priest then under these circumstances to threaten a dissentient with 'separation,' would be equally impudent and ridiculous. The civilized World is now bred up to the level of the Angels, who (according to our Author) when required to submit to Authority, answer

• 'De Divina Providentia,' Nos. 129 and 136.

SYMBOL AND SUBSTANCE.

47

"Do you think yourself a god, that I am to believe "you? Or, that I am mad, that I should believe an "assertion in which I do not see any truth? If I must 66 believe, cause me to see. How can I believe, when I do "not know whether what you say be true or not ?"*

Of a piece with the passage on which we have just remarked is the following

'Dignity and honour ought to be paid to Ministers on ' account of the sanctity of their office; but those Ministers 'who are wise ascribe all such honour to the Lord, from 'whom all sanctity is derived, and not to themselves. . . . 'The honour of any employment is not in the person of 'him who is employed, but is only annexed to him on ' account of the dignity of the office in which he is engaged; ' and what is so annexed does not belong to the person but 'the employment, being separated from the person when he 'is separated from the employment.'†

Here the confusion, arising from regarding the Church indifferently as a symbol and a reality, is continued. When, as in the Jewish Church, and the Catholic Church of the middle ages, the function of the Priest was theatrical and independent of his personal character, such directions might have force; but now when the stage is free to everybody, and players and spectators rub shoulders in equality, 'to ' render dignity and honour to a Priest on account of the sanctity of his office,' is impossible with sincerity. If anybody renders me priestly service, I can no more withhold from him reverence than I can love from mother or brother; but on the other hand, that I should 'pay dignity ' and honour' to any creature who may chance to be styled a Priest, is flatly impossible except in hypocrisy. The long and short of it is, we have outgrown church symbolism and can no longer find satisfaction therein. The symbolic

* Doctrina de Fide,' No. 2.

† No. 317.

48

THE NEW WORLD OF REALITY.

Church lingers in existence, but to every living soul it is an anachronism. Where is there a Bishop, not a fool, who does not feel that his official title bears no relation to reality, and who would not shudder to find himself accepted by his acquaintance at his nominal value? The notion of honouring a man for his rank or office is utterly out of date as a duty. We honour a man for what he is and does -not for what he is officially labelled. If he occupies an office unworthily his official rank instead of being a title to respect is a warrant for criticism and condemnation. There is no more reason why we should honour any stupid fellow who is dubbed Reverend, than a foolish Author or an inefficient Carpenter.*

The chapter, in its helpless confusion of liberalism and conservatism, affords curious evidence of Swedenborg's blindness to the new social era on which the world had entered, and of which the grand characteristic is the exchange of shadow for substance, signs for realities, symbols for truths. He, the Prophet of the doctrinal New Jerusalem, failed to deduce therefrom the practical New Jerusalem, failed to foresee that in proportion as the Lord's will was done on Earth as in Heaven, Mankind would be delivered from the impostures of Church and State, and end in disowning every external obligation which is not the outcome of a real internal relation. We are a long long way from that heavenly condition, but all our movements tend irresistibly thitherwards.

* It is difficult to censure Swedenborg from common-sense without finding in him common-sense equal to the censure. Thus we find him saying elsewhere, The Priesthood should be respected in proportion to its service.''Vera Christiana Religio,' No. 415.