NEW JERUSALEM, OR NEW CHRISTIAN CHURCH. BY A LAYMAN OF THAT DENOMINATION. THIS body of Christians receives the doctrines and theological writings of the late Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg, as a rational and authoritative exposition of Scripture. Before proceeding to a sketch of its doctrines, it is proper to premise, that this church refuses to be regarded as one of the many different sects into which the general body of Christians is unhappily divided; but claims, as the name imports, to be an entirely new dispensation of doctrinal truth, as compared with any of the systems which at present prevail. "A new church!" will the reader exclaim in wonder or indignation: "Where's the necessity?" And we meet the inquiry at the threshold. The reasons are many. We can here cite but a few— and even these cannot be given without reference to opinions of other Christians, from which we dissent. We would, therefore, premise that we desire such reference and such dissent may not be interpreted into any want of respect to their holders as such; since erroneous opinions may be innocently adopted or retained, although there has been no full collation of conflicting systems. There was a time when the followers of our Lord were of one heart and one mind; but now we see them hopelessly sundered into Romanists on the one hand, and Greeks and Protestants on the other; and the latter rent into many-coloured and uncompromising factions. And if there be a temporary or seeming union among them, neutral spectators still think or fear, that it is not because they love each other more, but Rome less. What is the object of any church, but to preserve and propagate the truth for the sake of good? And has the former Christian church done this? While we acknowledge with Protestants, that it had become utterly corrupt in doctrine and practice before the Reformation, the radical differences among themselves show that they cannot all be right; nor will it avail to assert that they agree in fundamentals. We know of no such accordance in any one doctrine, either as to the nature of God, the character and wants of man, the mode of divine interposition, or the inspiration of the Scriptures. Granting that each sect has retained some truth,-and were there not a portion in the worst, we should not, as we do, see good men in every one,-the true system of doctrine has been lost; the true ideal of Christian character has been forgotten, if it was ever fully known, and men were left to suppose that this religion was incompatible with rational pleasure and manly dignity or virtue. Christianity lies in ruins, and the life of its several fragments is only that of the segments of a polypus, hopeless of reunion. And it must be owned, that, if we are to look for nothing better in the future than the past, it has proved a failure. The adulterous connexion with the state early led to its corruption, and to the reproach that Catholicism, like the Koran, if not propagated, has at least been maintained, by policy and the sword. Remonstrants were denounced under the name of heretics-their tenets and apologies suppressed with them. Some fragments, even now, lay more stress on church government and obedience to authority, than on knowledge; and all insist more on faith than on works. Reason has been discarded as an enemy, and mystery received into alliance. As a natural consequence, the ablest minds have become infidel, or indifferent to religion as a personal affair; or, seeing that society. cannot subsist without it, they yield a formal and political support, while the feeble have been inflamed to fanaticism. The clergy have sometimes complained of the slight esteem in which their order is held where not patronized by the state, and of the opposition they encounter where they are. Not to mention their demeanour towards opponents and their unwavering regard to their corporate interests, we think they need look no farther than to their own dogmas, to account for the decline of reverence for their sacred function. We do not say that their lives are spent operose nihil agendo; for any religion which does not discourage good morals is better than none; but they do reap an immature and stunted harvest, themselves being judges. Men will not freely bestow even on spiritual rulers the fruits of their labours without an adequate return. Why is it, that, after eighteen centuries, Mahommedism is more extended than Christendom, and Heathenism more than either? Nay, why did Mahommed rise at all? and why is the conversion of his followers so hopeless, and the missionary crippled in his efforts at every turn? Why are irresponsible societies left to discharge the duty of the Church? It is, that those who had the control of religion "DID NOT UNDerstand His WORD." "THEY ERRED, Not knowing the Scriptures, or the POWER But if we concede for a moment the purity of what is taught, it is inadequate to the increased demand of the general mind. Men outgrow the garments of their youth. Philosophy and religion are in unnatural conflict. We need a new developement of Christianity, in which all parts of knowledge shall assume their proper position. We have no clear views in the fundamentals of all religion, as distinguished from those of the wiser Heathen and Deists. They believe in one God, the immortality of the soul, and retribution; and the prevalent systems throw us back on their insufficient ideas. Or rather, we are fain to believe that, with advancing time, we know less and less of the truth. If our present teachers know all that is necessary, free of error, why is it that the good and wise do not see it? and if either Protestant or Catholic is entitled to exclusive ascendency, why has Providence permitted neither to attain it? Again, however opposed to the received opinion, we think that Scripture clearly teaches us that "the earth abideth for ever."* Can we suppose, then, that our benevolent Teacher will permit the existing state of doubt and distraction to be also perpetuated, and never interpose for our relief? Why should he not? Every founder of a sect, every believer in a Millennium, in effect, says, that he may. He has no where told us that he would never clear up the mysteries of his Word. To do so would but be in accordance with the progressive character of all former dispensations, which were given as necessity arose. If Moses and the Prophets have been so perverted that they cannot be understood: there cannot occur a more fitting occasion for divine interference than the present, when the hearts of men are failing them for fear, and when many are looking and praying for such a blessing; though some, when it is offered, refuse it, with a strange perverseness, as inconsistent with ideas which prevail. Said our But the one sufficient reason is reserved to the last. Lord to his disciples while on earth, "I have many things to say unto * Ecc. i. 4; Ps. lxxii. 17; lxxviii. 69; lxxxix. 35–37; xcvi. 10; xciii. 1; civ. 5; cxxv. 1; cxix. 90; cxlviii. 6; (2 Sam. vii. 16; Isa. ix. 7; Dan. ii. 44; vii. 14, 27; Micah iv. 5, 7; Comp. Luke i. 33 and Rev. xi. 15.) Every Greek scholar knows that the phrase “end of the world" in Matt. xiii. 39; xxiv. 30; xxviii. 20; should be translated "consummation of the age." Peter, who (Acts ii. 16-20.) had explained similar language of the prophet Joel as fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, in his 2d Epistle iii. 7-10, has reference to the above words of our Lord; of course to be fulfilled in a similar manner, as also wherever it is used in the prophetic style. Matt. v. 18, Luke xvi. 17, and the like, declare, by a strong Hebraism, of two events that both are equally improbable; so that the passages just cited retain their literal import. you, but ye cannot bear them now. The time cometh . . . when I shall show you plainly of the Father." (John xvi. 12-25.) Himself had predicted the decline of that dispensation, and its utter overthrow from its foundations; and that he would come again. (Matt. xxiv.) And the prophet of the future fortunes of the Church saw in vision" the Holy City, New Jerusalem, descending from God out of heaven, like a bride adorned for her husband;"-"the tabernacle of God with men." (Rev. xxi. 1–5.) "The kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord." (xi. 15.) It is for the fulfilment of this promise, that we believe all things are now ready. It is for this hope's sake, nay, confidence, that he has come-not in person, as many are even now, looking for him—but in the power and glory of the spiritual meaning of his Word, which has heretofore been clouded by the literal sense, that we are denounced as enthusiasts or worse. Is a prophecy ever understood until accomplished? When he does come, is it probable that the world in general will be aware either of the fact or mode of his appearance; or believe it, if true? (Matt. xxiv. 44; Luke xviii. 8.) In all religious inquiries, the principal object should be the knowledge of God. As, if clear ideas are wanting here, all subsequent reasoning is darkened and perplexed, if not entirely vitiated. We suppose few will be found at the present day to deny, at least in words, that God is one, and God is good; and that this is discoverable from his works. But the Christian is asked yet another question, -and surely when aided by revelation, his answer should be full and exact," Who then was that dread, mysterious one that walked the earth more than eighteen centuries since, whose appearance was the signal for a contest of opinions, which has widened and extended to our own day?" We do not care, even if our space permitted, to rake into ecclesiastical history, among the ashes of forgotten heresies, whose authors" would not have this man to reign over them." Let us descend to more recent times. The master himself, when here, inquired of his disciples, "What think ye of Christ?" and the question is re-echoed through the long tract of ages. "He is one of three divine persons, each of whom is by himself God," says the Athanasian. Be it so," says the Arian, "if you grant that his is a derived divinity." "He is one three somewhats," says the mathematical! Dr. Wallis. Sirs, we do not understand you; nor can we accompany the logic which would put a difference between three separate divine persons, and three distinct gods! "Your objection is natural," says Priestley; "he was a good man: a prophet, if you will: but still the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally fallible and peccable as you 66 or I." "I go farther," says Mr. Belsham, "and assert that his too partial biographers may have suppressed certain portions of his private history, which would have proved him actually guilty of common frailties." Sirs, your statement is intelligible; but it contradicts the general tenor and many express declarations of Scripture. "We would offend neither prejudice nor reason," says the transcendental Unitarian; "we believe in but one God, and neither affirm nor deny the divinity of Christ; but we do accept him as our teacher." Very good apology for a lover of mystery, all of whose honours, however, you disclaim. "We are not required to express an opinion," says John Locke, or Alexander Campbell; "sufficient it is, if we believe, with the primitive Christians, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Saviour of the world." Very well, and who is the Messiah? It is plain, that, on a point of such importance, statements so various or inadequate cannot be satisfactory to all minds. And should any unsatisfied inquirer put the question to us, we answer, without ambiguity, equivocation, evasion or reserve, He was God manifest in the flesh. We know, we conceive of, we worship no other; we pray to no other for his sake. We have an apostle's assertion that "in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;" and his own, that "whosoever sees him, seeth the Father:" and that he hath "all power in heaven and on earth." The Deist and the Pantheist believe in a God diffused through all space. This is the Christian's God-visible in a human form. The anthropomorphism that is to be shunned, is not that which ascribes body and parts to the Deity, (for the human form is the original type from which all organized forms are degradations,) but the malignant passions of anger, wrath, and revenge, from which, surely one being in the universe, ought to be exempt. But farther-what was the true character of man, and the occasion of God's becoming incarnate?" He is wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body;" says a particular creed; "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil." Even if not a reflection on his Maker, does not this statement leave man irresponsible? "The new-born infant,” says the Pelagian," is as pure as was the first man before the fallthe consequences of whose sin are confined to his own person." so, what need of a Redeemer? and why do all inevitably degenerate? To return-what did he do on our behalf while here? and what connexion is there between his obedience and sufferings and our benefit? "He died that he might rise again," and "thus bring life and immortality to light," says the Unitarian; and so far truly. "He died If |