of the three wonderful occurrences she had heard concerning Swedenborg and his communication with the spirits of the departed. The first of these occurrences was that relating to the Queen; the second was that respecting the mislaid receipt, which the Dutch Ambassador at the Court of Sweden, the husband of Madame de Martville, had received in payment of a certain sum, which after his death the creditor again demanded. This mislaid receipt was recovered through information which Swedenborg obtained from the departed husband. It was from having heard this report, and from the sensation it created in Stockholm, that the Queen was chiefly induced to examine Swedenborg's case herself, and to ascertain by her own experience whether he had the power of conversing with departed spirits or not. The third remarkable occurrence was that respecting the fire at Stockholm, which Swedenborg, who had recently arrived at Gottenburg from London, announced at the time it broke out to the company where he was; and consequently a long time before the news of its ravages could arrive in Gottenburg, there being about 300 English miles distance between the two places. In two or three days letters arrived in Gottenburg from Stockholm, informing the inhabitants of the fire, stating when it began and when it was extinguished; thus confirming, to the great astonishment of all, the truth of Swedenborg's announcement. Kant, în this letter, gives a circumstantial account of this latter occurrence, and says "that it is beyond the possibility of doubt."* * See Documents concerning Swedenborg, &c., pages 124-133. It is important that the reader should know, that the dates in Kant's letter, have lately been proved by Dr. Tafel, of Tübingen, to be quite erroneous. The real date of the letter could not be 1758, because Dr. Tafel has proved from documents that cannot be disputed, that all these three remarkable occurrences happened after the year 1758. For, 1. The husband of Madame de Marteville died April 25th, 1760, consequently after the date of Kant's letter. 2. It is well known that the Queen put Swedenborg to the test after the occurrence about the lost receipt, being moved chiefly by the report of that extraordinary event to have a personal interview with Swedenborg respecting his alleged wonderful gift. And 3, the fire at Stockholm took place the 19th of July, 1759, and not in 1756, as stated in Kant's letter. All these facts Dr. Tafel has proved in his recent "Supplement to the Documents concerning Swedenborg," from Newspapers, Gazettes, and other documents which record the events of that time, and consequently the fire in question, and also the death of the Count de Marteville. The question now is, whether these dates were written or printed by mistake, or whether, in the editing of Kant's entire works, many years after that letter was written, these dates were falsified of design. The fact is, that in 1766 Kant published a small work entitled the "Dreams of a Ghost-seer illustrated by Dreams of Metaphysics," in which, Swedenborg and the reports concerning him are the principal objects of his attack. In that work he constantly spells E. S.'s name Swedenborg himself never wrote down any of these occurrences, because they would have been construed as miracles, and thus Swedenborg, who constantly protested against miracles as a means of implanting faith, would have been placed by his opponents in contradiction and collision with himself. But when he was appealed to respecting them, as by the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, and by his minister, M. Venator,* by General Tuxen, in Denmark, by C. Springer, Esq., Swedish Consul in London, and by M. Ab Indagine, in Amsterdam,† he always affirmed that the occurrences were true; but at the same time warned the inquirer against considering them as miracles, but only as testimonies or proofs that the Lord had opened his spiritual senses to have intercourse with the spiritual world. wrong (Schwedenberg), and proves that he knew nothing concerning him but from hearsay reports. Moreover, in this work he alludes to the anecdote respecting the Queen of Sweden, and states that it could not be disputed; he also says that it occurred in 1761, which is a proof from Kant himself, that the date of the letter to Madame de Knobloch (1758) is incorrect. And in this work, page 88, the right date of the fire (1759 instead of 1756) is put. Now this letter was written subsequently to 1766, or after Kant's work above alluded to had appeared, and the proper date of it is shewn to be 1768 instead of 1758. It is probable that by mistake the 5 might have been printed instead of 6, and that in the date of the fire, 1756, the 6 might have crept in instead of the 9. If so, nobody is involved in the falsification of the said dates. This letter, however, together with the works of Kant, is said by the editor, Borowski, in 1804, very soon after Kant's death, "to have been strictly revised and corrected by Kant himself," and if so the suspicion cannot but arise that Kant was privy to the alteration in these dates. It is probable that, as his work, “The Dreams of a Ghost-seer illustrated by Dreams of Metaphysics" had excited some attention in the literary world, and had added somewhat to the fame of Kant, he saw, that should this letter, in which he expresses himself as so firmly convinced of the truth of the three remarkable occurrences recorded of the Queen, the mislaid receipt, and Jethe fire at Stockholm, appear as a subsequent production, it would be construed into a gross inconsistency in the author. But if this was the motive which led either Kant or his editors to change the dates, why did they not suppress the letter altogether, si , since as critics, they ought certainly to have borne in mind, that sooner or a critic would arise, who would detect the falsification, and put the matter in Joits true light. But however this may be, it is of great importance that these dates should be corrected, because when it is seen that Kant's letter appeared after his work on the "Dreams of a Ghost-seer," &c., in which he holds Swedenborg up to ridicule and contempt, it shews that whatever, after further examination, might have been the state of his will as to Swedenborg's writings, and claims upon the attention of mankind, his understanding was certainly convinced as to the truth of Swedenborg's assertion, that he had open communication with spirits, and could converse with them. later 36 Rod B2* See Documents concerning Swedenborg, &e. p. 232 to 236. omen #2 3 dis+ See Documents, &c., p. 52—63, 65, 108—113. In respect to the Countess de Martville and the recovery of the mislaid receipt, this occurrence is attested by several independent witnesses ; 1. by the Queen of Sweden, who having conferred with the Countess about it, constantly affirmed the truth of it. 2. By Count Osterman,* at that time Russian Ambassador at Stockholm, and who had, no doubt, been intimately acquainted with the Count de Martville 3. The second husband of the Countess de Martville, the Danish General von Esse who, in a letter to a clergyman requesting to be particularly informed as to this extraordinary occurrence, related the account as his wife instructed him. 4. The brother of the Countess, the Baron de Hamon. 5. M. Robsahm, Director of the Bank of Stockholm. These were direct and independent witnesses, one of whom, M. Robsahm, was a personal friend of Swedenborg's. The Queen highly respected him for his learning and exemplary conduct, and as one of the senators of the kingdom, but she could not be said to be so personally acquainted with him and his writings as to be biassed by partiality in his favour; on the contrary, she was negatively disposed as to every thing spiritual, and more so, as to the possibility of conversing with the inhabitants of the spiritual world, as is evident from her declaration to the learned savans at Berlin. The Queen," says Thiebault, "although she laid great stress on the truth of her recital, professed herself, at the same time, incredulous to Swedenborg's supposed conferences with the dead." The celebrated Wieland, to whom we have alluded above, after having examined the authority and the proofs on which the truth of these occurrences was established, without having yet seen the very important letter of the philosopher Kant, said, in addressing a friend in his work entitled Euthanasia, after relating the occurrence respecting the Queen of Sweden: : "Here you have my anecdote from the world of spirits, and I hope you will have nothing to object against the credibility of a lady, such as the late Queen Ulrika was, who testifies that she herself was the person who experienced the occurrence; and also that you will have no objection to an authority like that of M. Thièbault, who having heard it from the mouth of the Queen herself, has related it to the whole world. By heaven! this is a wonderful occurrence, indeed, it would be something quite incredible if it were not confirmed by witnesses so trustworthy. The beautiful feature of the matter is, that suppose all the tales about the apparition of spirits in the whole world were set aside as not true, this single narrative by the Queen Ulrika of a fact which she herself experienced, ought to give us the greatest certainty as to the continuation of our life, and of our personality after death;a fact which renders all the experiments which Dr. W. requires philosophy to make, superfluous. Swe * Documents, p. 75. See also Stilling's " Theory of Pneumatology," p. 425. + Documents, p. 70—90. denborg, an esteemed Swedish nobleman, in independent circumstances, a mathematician, a natural philosopher, and a mineralogist by profession, who in these departments of science had acquired celebrity, and during the first fifty years of his life was always esteemed as a very rational man, assures us, that through the favor of God, the invisible world was opened unto him, and that thus he could converse face to face with the spirits of the departed. This man was commissioned by his Queen (in order to put him to the test, and in a manner in which she considered deception to be impossible) to inquire of her deceased brother about something, which except herself and her brother nobody could know. After some days Swedenborg returned to the Queen and told her, word for word, what she desired to know, stating, at the same time, all the particulars as to the place and the time [where and when the event occurred between herself and her brother.] Swedenborg, therefore, must, of necessity, have received his information from the spirit of the departed; he had consequently seen him and spoken with him'; the departed, therefore, still continued to live in a world invisible to us; he remembered exactly the most particular circumstances of his former life, and he had consequently retained his entire personality.* All this is certain and undeniable, in so far as as the Queen and her declaration is concerned. Now what can re reasonably desire to know more concerning the continuation of our life after death? Could so respectable a guarantee be for a moment doubted? It appears, however, this wonderful proof [of the continuation of our life after death] did not suffice to heal the Queen" of her unbelief, for notwithstanding all this, she at length declared that she did not believe that Swedenborg had had any conference with her deceased brother. And (says Wieland) to speak sincerely, I believe it as little as the Queen did." we that s Thus, Wieland, notwithstanding his entire conviction that "Swedenborg must have seen and spoken with the departed Prince," declares his unbelief after all! And so it is, for the most part, with all miraculous evidence. As, however, there are some who by these undeniable facts, as both Kant and Wieland call them, may be led to inquire and to read the writings of Swedenborg, and thus to see, not from any à posteriori or miraculous evidence, but from the truths themselves which abound in his works, the genuine doctrines of a renovated Christianity, denoted by the "New Jerusalem." We will conclude this paper by alluding to an occurrence of the kind which happened to the celebrated John Wesley. In the year 1772, a short time before Swedenborg's death in London, Mr. Wesley, when engaged in a conference with some of his preachers, prior to his departure on one of his circuits, received a note from Swedenborg, as follows Sir, I have been informed in the world of spirits that you have a strong desire to converse with me; I shall be happy to see you, if you will favour me with a visit.-I am, &c. Mr. Wesley read this note to the company, and frankly acknowledged * The Italics in this extract are the same as in the German. that he had been very strongly impressed with a desire to see and converse with Swedenborg, and that he had never mentioned that desire to any one.* Mr. Smith, who was one of the preachers then present, was induced from this extraordinary occurrence to read Swedenborg's writings, and he afterwards became a minister in the New Church; and Mr. James Hindmarsh, another of his preachers, also received the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, and preached them, so long as the infirmities of age did not prevent him, to the end of his life. From the "New Supplement of Documents," lately published by Dr. Tafel, we shall in another paper insert some things which have not, we believe, been hitherto published in English. THE government of the temper, is the keeping of the understanding in advance of the will, by moderating the headlong impulses, and correcting the hasty conclusions of the latter, by the conscientious or prudential dictates of the former. The process, although aided by a good disposition, principally must owe its success, where the temper is naturally not good, to early external influences. The government of the temper may, indeed, be regarded as principally resulting from the res traints of education and civilization. A good disposition, on the other hand, is almost entirely of voluntary origin. It is grounded in moral or spiritual principles and determinations, and when it developes itself so easily as to appear spontaneous, a person is said to possess a good natural disposition. The real value, and also the permanency, of a good disposition, depends on the strength of the effort, and the greatness of the self-sacrifice made for its attainment. So far as a good disposition is a merely natural endowment, it is without the light and power of a principle, and is exposed to inroads and fluctuations. CLXIV. What a consolation it is to the loving heart when driven back upon itself, and shut up within its own yearnings, through the paucity of * See a more particular account of this occurrence in Mr. Noble's Appeal, &c., last edition, p. 246–251, and in the Documents, p. 136–143,0 bis zwoiv beytalog |