eternal; and that they are exalted according to the prevalence of wisdom with the husband, and this because they live to eternity in the bloom of their age, and because they know no greater happiness than to grow wiser and wiser" (C. L. 68, 69). These are but a few of the flowers abounding in Swedenborg's garden. Surely here Panthea may wander with perfect satisfaction. Would its perfume be equally grateful to Strauss, to Schopenhauer, or to Swinburne? People talk about "holy matrimony," and perhaps not one in a thousand could say why it is holy. And there are many, even "Christians," who think of it as a mere civil contract, made for a temporary purpose, and ending with death,—and act accordingly. Very little progress has been made since Swedenborg's day in the knowledge of what "love truly conjugial" really is. What advance there is must be looked for chiefly among those "Swedenborgians" who have learned it from the man who is falsely charged with "attacking family life from false religion"! So we have an instance, Mr. Cook being witness, of a polluted fountain bringing forth sweet waters, of a corrupt tree bringing forth good fruit, which he might have learned from his Bible is an impossibility. Had he studied Swedenborg's own works instead of dipping into Mr. White's somewhat cynical critique for his information, he would have been compelled to confess not only that he taught the sublimest and holiest ideal of marriage that the world has ever seen, but that his own strictures were altogether uncalled for, unjust, and misleading. The same principles which are embodied in the extracts above given lie at the base even of those portions denounced by Mr. Cook. Scrupulous care is taken not by any permissions to violate the conjugial principle. And what is the result, according to Mr. Cook's testimony? The inviolable sanctity of marriage among his followers and disciples, so that he has no charge to bring against them! And yet it is true, although Mr. Cook denies it, that they accept Swedenborg's teaching on this subject. Can he give any other instance of a teacher, advocating loose views of marriage, whose disciples set an example of moral purity? The truth is that the very acceptance of such an ideal of marriage as Swedenborg presents guarantees its security against violations of it. But there is another aspect of the question. The sanctity of marriage is taught by all bodies of orthodox Christians, whether of the Established Church or Nonconformists. The sin of violating "holy matrimony" is denounced by all. Where the Decalogue is read the people are reminded at least once a week of the command, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Under no circumstances is concubinage allowable. "Society" indorses these laws, and has no pity for those who break them. No That "infamous teaching," calculated to "break up the family," is tolerated. The consequence should be a state of things very much superior even to what is found in the New Church. But what is the fact? separation, divorce, adultery, and the "social evil" are undermining society In spite of orthodox teaching, "the divergence of the ages from their natural ideals," it may almost be said, is the rule; chastity the exception. If a tree is to be known by its fruits, we shall have no difficulty in determining which is the corrupt tree and which the good one. Mr. Cook supports the former and denounces the latter ! Which, then, attacks family life? Certainly not Swedenborg. If Mr. Cook would circulate those works which he ignorantly denounces, he would find them the most effectual mode of preventing those scandals which meet us on every side among so-called "orthodox Christians." It is people's ignorance of the nature and perpetuity of true marriage, and of its intimate union with religion, which is doing so much mischief. Swedenborg's doctrine is that the delights of conjugial love originate in the spirit, for it means a union of two minds, each giving itself to the other, and living for that other. Hence all the pleasures of that love from first to last are holy and chaste. On the other hand, the mere love of the sex originates, in the body and its passions, and thus infects the spirit, and hence all the delights of this love are impure and unchaste. He says, it is true, there are many degrees of criminality in extraconjugial connections, from the mildest to the most flagrant, but this, I suppose, every one will admit. He also says that under certain strictly defined circumstances concubinage in a natural or non-religious man is excusable if accompanied by entire separation from the wife, although to be deprecated. And he enumerates what he considers just causes of this. Swedenborg would bear with some lesser forms of sin in this respect rather than drive men, through over-rigid law, into evils more fatal to the conjugial state and the order of society, as the Divine Wisdom suffered the Jews, in the hardness of their hearts, "to put away their wives." Thus to bear with some evil was not to sanction it.1 Of the "excusatory causes" grounded in what is just mentioned by Swedenborg, there are some which may admit of difference of opinion, but they are all comprised in such extreme incompatibility, like that of Wesley and his wife, as must render living together impossible. His 1 Some blame Luther and some defend him in his acquiescence in the case of the Landgrave of Hesse, but unhappily such cases have sometimes to be dealt with. object was no doubt the more effectually to safeguard "true conjugial love." But to class with the vilest one who has given to the world such a sublime ideal of conjugal purity as Swedenborg has, because he differs from us in some minor points, would be uncharity and injustice such as a Christian could not knowingly commit. Even Mr. White says: "The multitude of men have no conscience in the matter of women: some will frankly tell you that chastity is no virtue in their sex. If even licentiousness be condemned, it is commonly in a tone which suggests as much sympathy as censure. Such being the case, Swedenborg has at least this merit, that he prescribes restrictions where the world imposes none." It cannot be too often repeated that the permissions and restrictions of Swedenborg, who had wider and more comprehensive ideas than most of his critics, all had for their end the safeguarding of the conjugial state. S. C. Review. ARCANA CELESTIA. Vol. V. Library Edition. WE are extremely gratified to see another volume of the "Arcana " reprinted in such excellent style of paper, printing, and general arrangement. The committee may well be congratulated on the constant improvement in their issues of this marvellous work. The revision has been done with great care, and leaves in this respect hardly anything to be desired. Two special features in the volume we must point out to our readers. One is, the use of stronger figures when Swedenborg has more than a single reference to previous paragraphs, indicating to the reader the places where the subject is more fully explained than in the other numbers indicated by slenderer numerals. Thus, 2401, 2785, 2912, 2927, 3171. To thoughtful readers this will be a great assistance and saving of time. Another decided advance in this volume is found in breaking up the long sections covering many pages into shorter paragraphs, relieving the reader, and very much contributing to clearing the subject as well as improving the page. The word scientifics disappears, we observe, from this volume, which it has long been suggested would be better rendered by "facts" or some equivalent. Many other advantages we notice in diction and clearness, and we most heartily commend this volume to our readers. Correspondence. (To the Editor of the "Intellectual Repository.") MRS. BEAZELEY'S EPITAPH. DEAR SIR,-A few days ago, during a visit to Hastings with my family, I came down the slope of the East Hill into the lovely valley at the farther end of the picturesque old town, and soon found myself in the quiet graveyard of All Saints' Church. It is a sweet spot, and while the edifice itself is interesting as dating from the fifteenth century, and containing several monuments as well as historical associations, the surrounding "God's acre" contains the tomb of George Mogridge, better known and honoured as "Old Humphrey." Noting this, and passing on to con the various texts "That teach the rustic moralist to die," I could not avoid observing the hopelessness of life which many of them lamented. One exclaimed "Out, out! Brief candle, Life's but a walking shadow," Another, upon a stone to the memory of a young wife, complained with a mournful melody "Like crowded forest-trees we stand, And soon are marked to fall; The axe must strike at God's command, And soon will strike us all." But turning round from this grave, and coming near to the door of the vestry, I found a monument which would have a far higher interest to your readers. The writer of the epitaph was able to soar beyond the clouds and sorrows of earth. It was the expression of a rising confidence the confession of a new faith. The memorial, protected: by a railing, has a square base, surmounted by an urn. From this urn, symbolizing the human body, a flame, indicating the immortal soul, was rising heavenward. On one side of the base was this inscription— The mortal remains of Eliza, the beloved wife of Lieut, Beazeley, R. N., are buried here. She departed this life 30th Oct., A.D. 1823. Age 24 years. Their infant daughter Emma followed her mother, Nov. 4, 1823, aged 10 days.” 66 This is sad enough in reading, but different feelings arise when we read the lines on the reverse side of the monument "Led by the truths which Swedenborg has taught, To Jesus Christ, as God, and none besides, It is impossible not to be affected by the glow of confidence which in so dark an hour could have prompted these lines; to be moved by the ardour for Truth which their appearance in this situation involves. Here for nearly sixty years, amid alien voices, one voice has been speaking from the cold grey stone, testifying to "the Truth as it is in Jesus." Here from the desolate hearth of the stricken husband and father has gone up, not the wail of despair, but the noble expression of unabated confidence in the will of the heavenly Father. And when we note how much it is the fashion for some modern New Church people to conceal their distinctive views, to avoid distinctive names, and to speak with bated breath of Emanuel Swedenborg, it is healthy for us to mark how differently the early receivers acted. It is good for the younger generation to read this frank yet tender confession of a creed, made under the blow of heavy calamity (humanly speaking), in a Church of England graveyard. Perhaps an older member of our Church may be able to tell us something further of interest in reference to the subject and the writer of this remarkable epitaph. I. W. T. [A long obituary notice of Mrs. Beazeley, with the metrical epitaph, appeared in the Repository for April-June 1824, and we think it has been noticed since, but the epitaph will bear repetition. We learn from the obituary that Mr. Beazeley had also purchased permission to have a tablet put up in the parish church, with an inscription as distinctly New Church as that on the tombstone. Mrs. Beazeley died at the early age of twenty-four, having been four years married. The home of this happy pair was in Brightlingsea. Lieutenant, afterwards Commander, Beazeley was well known to the friends in London, where he attended church, latterly Dr. Bayley's, till the time of his death, which took place a few years ago. We are not aware who was the writer of the epitaph.-ED.] |