ON THE DESIGNATION, "NEW JERUSALEM CHURCH." To the Editors of the Intellectual Repository. GENTLEMEN, "A MEMBER," twelve months since, respectfully requested his brethren (in page 22) to inform him whether any authority can be discovered in the writings of Swedenborg, for the designation "New Jerusalem Church." To this very proper request no reply has been offered. From this circumstance, I am left to conclude, that " we have set up a designation which lacks authority." Could authority have been produced, I would have waived my objection, that this designation involves a solecism, as I shall now proceed to shew. "The New Jerusalem," in the Revelations, is not mentioned in a literal sense; it has no literal sense, and cannot with propriety be used in that sense, but only in its spiritual or allegorical sense. It is only the advocates of the literal restoration of the Jews, who understand it in a literal sense, and who believe that it means the Old Jerusalem, or Jewish church, which is to be restored or formed anew, and become a New Jewish kingdom. In our title, however, "New Jerusalem Church,"-the words "New Jerusalem," are unwarrantably used in a literal sense only, and in that sense, can mean nothing else than a new Jewish church. How often has our unfortunate designation been thus understood by strangers!* Are we not then, guilty of the solecism of using allegorical words in a literal sense? The spiritual and only intended meaning of the "New Jerusalem," we are all quite agreed, is, a new Christian Church. As this is the undoubted meaning of the allegorical words, it suggests, I submit, the nature of the title which we ought to adopt. the At any rate, no one can possibly object to the title New Christian Church. Its unobjectionable character proves its accuracy. And now let me beg attention to what this title naturally implies. It means, Christian Church restored to the purity of the Christian dispensation, as set forth in the New Testament. is What then, by parity, can the title New Jerusalem Church mean * It is not a little singular that our late place of worship in Burton Street, London, literally speaking, a "New Jerusalem Church;" for it is occupied by the advocates of a new mode of Jewish worship. now, but this? Jerusalem, that is, the Jewish church, restored to the purity of the Jewish dispensation as set forth in the Old Testament. Such, I apprehend, is the only fair construction of this title. To say that some persons attach another and a secret meaning to it, is only still further to establish its impropriety. In the Prophets it is well known, that "Jerusalem" often spiritually signifies the church to be established by the Lord, when he should come into the world; thus it signifies the Christian Church, in the same manner as the "New Jerusalem" signifies the new or second Christian Church. But the Apostles and first Christians did not call their church the Jerusalem Church, why then should we call our Christian Church the "New Jerusalem Church ?" I assure you, that I am open to conviction; but, at present, I am strongly impressed that our common designation is not only unauthorized, but improper, and indeed, absurd and calculated to mislead; besides all which it tends to foster prejudices against us. It often conveys to strangers an idea of arrogance, fanaticism, or mystery, or all together! Perhaps, some honest-hearted zealous person, may be ready to say, "Oh! you want to hide your colours, do you?" Certainly not. But the question I require to be fairly answered is this,-What is the proper symbol or title of the church of which I have been long an unveiled advocate ? Should any one be disposed to question my accuracy, it surely must be the able editors of the new and admirable "Magazine for the children of the New Jerusalem Church;" for they have adopted this title since it has been openly impugned. How is it that duty to an erring brother did not prompt them to defend it? Either they have followed blindly in the steps of precedent, or they have a reason to give for their proceeding, and for the production of that reason, I should be much obliged to them. At any rate, I fancy that "Magazine for the children of the New Christian Church," would have been a description likely to have had a better effect on the minds of both the Sunday School children and their parents. I may observe, that my objection does not equally apply to the appellation "New Jerusalem Magazine," because the "New Jerusalem" in the Apocalypse, does not mean the "New Jerusalem Magazine." In this case, the title is an arbitrary one, like any other, and no one is answerable for its adoption. Perhaps some one may say, "We have a right to adopt what title we please to describe our church. Granted. But is it not better to choose an unobjectionable, intelligible, and authorized one, than one altogether the reverse? Does any one feel a difficulty as to how we should describe ourselves to the public, I answer, that in announcing a sermon, it may be done in this way :-"A sermon will be preached to the congregation of the New Christian Church, in Street, &c." Every place of worship might write up, "New Christian Church," a title far less mysterious, offensive, and repulsive, than the one objected to; a title, indeed, rather attractive than otherwise, and free from every possible objection, and answering every possible purpose of distinction. Nothing can be more alien to the character of the new dispensation than the absence of an openness to conviction, on the one hand, and persisting in an indefensible course on the other. Either let my proposition be cheerfully adopted, or its fallacy be fully and fairly pointed out:-I care not which. Let it be remembered, that to retrace our steps in a mistaken direction, can be nothing but honourable to us. But let me here crave of the societies which have already put up the title objected to, not to take offence at a supposed better one having been offered. If any member of such a society can defend the title already adopted, no one will be more obliged to him than his sincere friend, A MEMBER. THE FOLLY OF INTERPRETING THE DIVINE WORD IN A LITERAL MANNER, SHEWN BY AN OLD WRITER. To the Editors of the Intellectual Repository. GENTLEMEN, THE following fable and reflection thereon are sent you for insertion, as tending to shew the extreme folly of Christians interpreting the divine Word in a literal manner. It is extracted from a large folio edition of Esop's Fables, page 466, edited by Sir Roger L'Estrange, printed in London, 1699. I have retained the old method of spelling. Hoping the same may prove acceptable to your readers, Quidhampton, Salisbury, October 6, 1841. I am, gentlemen, yours truly, D. T. DYKE. "A DISPUTE betwixt a DOCTOR, a VINTNER, and a BOTCHER. "There was a vintner and a botcher challeng'd a doctor of divinity to a tryal of skill in his own trade. He ask'd them by whom they 'd be try'd; they'd be try'd by the text, they said. The thing was agreed, and the time set, and so they brought their Geneva Bibles along with them. The doctor told them by way of preface, that though St. Paul fought with beasts at Ephesus, it was not the fashion for his followers to fight with beasts in England; and, therefore, if they could not prove themselves to be men, he 'd have nothing to do with them. They stood upon their pantoufles, that men they were, and that men he should find 'em to be; and they were ready to cast the cause upon that issue. That 's well, says the doctor to one of 'em, and pray 'e what are you for a man in the first place? I am a vintner, says t' other. Very good, quoth the doctor; and do you ever put new wine into old bottles? Yea, I do so, says the vintner. Then, says the doctor you are no man; for the text says, that no man putteth new wine into old bottles. I shall now come to your companion; pray 'e will you tell me, friend, what you are for a man? I am, says t'other, a taylor. Alias a botcher, I suppose, quoth the doctor. Put the case now, that my doublet were out at the elbows, and I have no more of the old cloth to patch it up withall, could you mend it d' ye think. Yea, quoth the botcher, I could get new cloth to mend it. Why then, says the doctor, you are no man neither; for you shall find it in another text, that no man putteth new cloth into an old garment; so that you are both beaten here at your own weapons; for here are two texts, to prove that you two are no men; which is but according to your own rule and method of interpreting Scripture. REFLEXION. The wisdom of the law will not suffer any man to exercise a trade that he has not served his time to; and a body would think that the reason of this provision should hold as well in divinity, as in manual crafts; for revelations at this time of the day, are as much out of date as miracles. This comical whimsie may serve in general for a reproof to bold and ignorant pretenders in matters that they do not understand; and so to those that confidently usurp upon other men's provinces, without any right or call to the function. What are the freaks in fine, of these religionaries, but fits of the spleen, and the fumes of a dark melancholly, covered under the name and pretence of divine gifts and graces? They'll cap ye texts, as school boys cap verses; and in defiance of all the extraordinary cases, the figures, types, allegories, and parrables, that are so frequent in Holy Writ, every thing must be understood too, as the doctor has turned it here upon the vintner and the botcher, according to the letter. They'll draw ye a warrant for the murdering of kings, from the example of Ahab and Benhadad. An authority for couzening their neighbours, from the Israelites robbing the Egyptians. In one word, they shall overturn all the principles of humane society, morality and religion itself, and shew ye a text for 't; and upon the whole matter, what is the conscience of these people more at last, than fancy and illusion? They contend for they know not what, like the two fellows that went to loggerheads about their religion; the one was a Martinist he said; the other said that all Martinists were Hereticks, and for his part he was a Lutheran: now the poor wretches were both of a side, and understood it not. As for the bus'ness of learning and common sense, they call it the wisdom of this world, and effectually make it a heavenly grace to be an egregious coxcomb. There was an honest, simple tradesman, wonderfully earnest with the parson of the parish to know what the forbidden fruit was; as if there had been no more in 't, than whether 'twas a Kentish or a Kirton pippin. The good man told him, that it was an apple, and that Adam's eating of it, brought all his posterity under a sentence of condemnation. T'other said, it was so hard a case, that in reverence to the divine mercy, he thought himself bound to question the whole story. This liberty of retailing divinity by the Letter is the very root of infidelity, and of all heresies, nay of Atheism itself. For when people have been beating their brains about a difficulty, and find they can make nothing on 't, they are apt to think there's nothing in 't; for the mystery 's lost to him that stands poring only upon the Letter.” ON THE ERRONEOUS ALLEGATION THAT "THE To the Editors of the Intellectual Repository. DEAR SIRS, I HAVE considered the reply of Mr. Frederic Portal, to my answer to his statement, and remain of opinion, that it is erroneous to state," the Hebrew is the basis of the Science of Correspondences." That it was proper to object to the erroneous position is evident, from that gentleman's having abandoned the propriety of it in his reply; though, and improperly in my judgment, he heads his late communication with the erroneous position. N. S. No. 27.-VOL. 3. N |