THE

INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY

AND

NEW JERUSALEM MAGAZINE.

N° L.-March, 1838.

BRIEF EXAMINATION AND DEFENCE OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF THE NEW CHURCH.

MY DEAR SIR,

IN A LETTER TO A FRIEND.

WITH real pleasure I now sit down to the consideration of that great subject, truth-spiritual truth; in reply to your two letters to me on this important topic. I do not entertain a doubt that you will attribute my lengthened silence to the proper cause, a pressure of engagement, as I stated in my note the other day.

Not to waste words in introducing the subject, which ought to be spent upon it, I will at once proceed to a few necessary preliminary remarks, and then, as well as I am able, arrange my ideas on the doctrines which are matter of Christian controversy between us, under their several heads.

I shall regard your two letters as one, not only because they both bear on the same point, the truth or falsity of the New Church doctrines, but because the differences between us contained in the first are repeated in the second. Receiving these doctrines so far as I understand them, I write as the humble apologist of the New Church, and I am led to hope that I shall shew the consistency of our views concerning the Lord, his Word, man's nature, and the means of his recovery from the depravity and degradation into which he has fallen; that they all harmonize with each other, and with the immutable Word of the ever-living God.

Presumptuous indeed must he be who would approach to discuss these weighty subjects depending on his own self-derived intelligence. If such a one confirmed himself in any thing (and a man may confirm himself in any thing), it would be most probably in error. In this pleasing epistolary intercourse which has been providentially opened between yourself and me, I look for assistance to HIM who has never failed to impart that degree of truth which has been necessary

whenever it has been sought with pure purpose of heart. Far from me be the thought of discoursing or writing concerning truth, or even of receiving it, except as a means to an end, which end should ever be the exaltation of the mind to the Lord, and thus to a higher state of love and use.

It strikes me that the best way of proceeding in this investigation will be, to substantiate the doctrine under consideration by the Word of God and by reason, and then to show the erroneous nature of the opinions commonly entertained respecting it, partly derived from the Scriptures misapprehended, but chiefly from prejudice; by which I mean all that hereditary falsehood which we receive from our progenitors, together with hereditary evil, increased by our commerce with mankind, by the perusal of those books that are most in accordance with our ruling love, and by confirming in our minds the illusions of the senses, by which we take appearances for truths. You cannot suppose that I attribute this to yourself alone; I attribute it to every man, because it belongs to every man. He who thinks himself free from prejudice is the most under its influence; and he who is the most fully regenerated, is the least under its influence.

There is not one sentence in your letter that pleases me more than the declaration, that "the design of our correspondence is to elicit truth." I can honestly say that, on my own part, it is. To be sure, all disputants acknowledge this; but it is evident that, with many of them, the laurel wreath of victory is the object in view. This, however, I trust is not the case with me, as I am satisfied it is not with yourself.

With great delight I read, that you "have no disposition to be sparing in your acknowledgments of the excellences of the New Church system." Confident as I am that you will acquit me of any intention to flatter you, I must say, this is the expression of a candid mind; yet it is admitting no more than must be admitted by every candid mind on looking fairly at it.

I was much struck with the extreme resemblance of the state of your mind (as expressed in the commencement of your second letter) to my own, when first writing to the friend that introduced the doctrines to me. Perhaps you did not notice it when writing, but you must certainly remember the similarity now it is pointed out, if you recollect reading my letters in the "Intellectual Repository for September 1836." How different were your sentiments respecting the New Church, after reading Mr. Noble's "Appeal" and the " Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures!" Before, you could see nothing in our

system of theology, as distinct from the Old Church, to approve of, but pronounced upon it condemnation in toto. Now you" do not hesitate to say, that you think, as to the fundamental principles of the ' Plenary,' Mr. N. has the truth on his side." That you should have many objections to make to the new views presented to your mind,— that you should be " doubtful whether you could go full lengths with him in the application of those principles to subordinate subjects;" that you "cannot" even "avoid coming to the conclusion, that the doctrines of the New Church include much of truth mixed with very serious error," is perfectly natural, nay, the contrary is not to be desired. In Swedenborg's largest work (Arcana Calestia, n. 7298), there is this observation: "It is according to the laws of order that no one ought to be persuaded instantaneously concerning truth; that is, that truth should not instantaneously be so confirmed as to leave no doubt at all concerning it; the reason is, because truth which is so confirmed becomes persuasive truth, and is without any extension, and also without any yielding. Such truth is represented in the other life as hard, and of such a quality as not to admit good in it, that it may become applicable. Hence it is, that as soon as any truth is presented before good spirits in the other life by manifest experience, there is presently afterwards presented some opposite, which causes doubt; thus it is given them to think and consider whether it be so, and to collect reasons, and thereby to bring that truth rationally into their mind. Hereby the spiritual sight hath extension as to that truth, even to opposites; hence it sees and perceives in understanding every quality of that truth, and hence can admit influx from heaven, according to the state of things; for truths receive various forms according to circumstances. This also is the reason why it was allowed the magicians to do the like as Aaron did; for thereby doubt was excited amongst the sons of Israel concerning the miracle, whether it was divine, and thus opportunity was given them of thinking and considering whether it was divine, and at length of confirming themselves that it was so." We take this as a fact, and it is confirmed by the similarity of our own experience to that of good spirits in the other life. You may take it as a probability, and it will be confirmed by your experience.

I will now enumerate all the subjects you have touched upon, and endeavour to confirm them by Scripture, as they are understood in the New Church. 1. On the Trinity, that it exists in the LORD JESUS. 2. On the Incarnation. 3. On the Atonement. 4. On Justification. 5. On the Jewish Sacrifices. 6. On the internal, spiritual sense of the WORD of GOD, that it exists in the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms,

the Evangelists, and the Apocalypse, but not in the Hagiographa, the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles. 7. On the analogy existing between natural and spiritual things. 8. On the establishment and apparently slow increase of the New Church. 9. My exchange of the doctrines of Methodism for those of the New Church.

FIRST. On the Trinity, as it exists in the LORD JESUS.

To reduce our different conception of the Lord Most High to the plainest language, and to express it briefly but comprehensively, we propose this question-Does Jehovah reside in three persons, two invisible, called the Father and the Holy Ghost, and one visible, having become so through the assumption of humanity, called Jesus Christ; the Father having created and now sustaining all things personally, or by the Son; the Son having redeemed the world, and now interceding with the Father to be reconciled to repenting sinners and to forgive them; and the Holy Ghost regenerating all who forsake their evil ways and believe this?-or, Is Jesus Christ sole Jehovah, who himself created and supports the universe, redeemed and regenerates mankind, being invisible till the incarnation, but then manifested to the world, and, after the complete glorification of the humanity, visible to the angels, when it is his good pleasure thus to reveal himself? I shall assume the latter part of this question as true, and appeal to the Scriptures in confirmation of it.

Not to stumble however at the outset, or argue against the wind, we will first define the word " person." You acknowledge that it is not used in the Bible to designate each principle of the Trinity, and therefore will not contend for it. You suggest the words "hypostasis," or "subsistency," " or any other verbal term which may be employed to designate the fact forced upon us from what the Scriptures declare concerning Jehovah, that there exists in the unity of his essence a plurality of persons or hypostases." What is the meaning you yourself attach to these expressions? You say, that "in order to arrive at a just conclusion on this point, we must take into consideration the numerous passages of Scripture where Jehovah is spoken of under the distinctive appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and which are not unfrequently associated altogether in one sentence, while all the attributes of personality are constantly predicated in reference to each of these distinctions; and particularly are those passages to be marked, where these persons or subsistencies are represented as addressing or speaking of or to each other exactly in the ordinary way of distinctive individuals; the second, in his delegated character, presenting fervent supplications with devout thanksgivings to the first." You

might as well contend for the word "person," as the term most descriptive of “each distinction" in the Trinity as you understand it, as for the doctrine itself. I know of no other word in the English language so fit to convey the idea formed in the mind concerning the above "distinctive individuals;" the first delegating, the second "delegated;" and, had you mentioned specifically the third, he must have been represented as commissioned. We have here then the idea you entertain respecting each divine person, and I believe it is the idea of the Old Church generally; it is what we express by the terms "individual," "agent," "being ;" and it is against the mischievous opinion that there are three divine persons, individuals, agents, or beings, that we erect our standard, and declare the personal Unity of God. Our contest with the Old Church is not a war of words, it is one of vital principles, involving spiritual and eternal interests. Had you underlined the word "represented" in the sentence quoted above, instead of that which follows, I might reply, "Very true, it does appear so ; and it appears that the sun every day takes his easy journey round the earth; and we learn from this and numberless other facts, that appearances are not realities." But, instead of endeavouring to account for the representation given in the letter of Scripture, you have taken it as a fact, and tried to confirm it. "To the law and to the testimony," that we may know whether the Lord our God exists in Three Persons, each requiring distinct worship, or whether he exists. as One Person, to whom ought to be ascribed all blessing and all praise.

I will not blink the question, or set down aught unfairly or unkindly. In the Old Church, three Divine Persons are distinctly and separately worshiped, and prayers are offered to each; not only so, but the supplications presented to one Divine Person generally differ in nature from those presented to another: and the writer has been recommended most seriously, by a minister, to return to this good old way! and yet in the face of all this it is maintained that there is but one God! Well has the Athanasian Creed expressed the contradiction existing here between the understanding and the lips: "As we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say there be three Gods or three Lords." If this were deliberately read, with the right inflections of the voice to any congregation of Christians, and the word "say" properly emphasized with the falling inflection, they would be shocked at the inconsistency and impiety of it. This is the only correct way of reading the sen