Page images
PDF
EPUB

in families and by descent; and which many, being fully satisfied in their little-inquiring minds, would think it shame to desert. True, there are many who, preferring greater or less shades of difference from the orthodox denominations, go off by divergent paths, and thus produce those ramifications and twigs before referred to; but the shades of difference which these really exhibit, when their belief is analyzed, are so small, that one can scarcely conceive them justified in permitting such mere chiaro-oscuros of doctrine to cut them off from the parent stem, and thus they lay themselves open to the charge of sectarianism. Such men not only say "Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body" (1 Cor. xii. 16), but they virtually assert, Because I am of the eye-brow, and not of the eye-lash, I am not of the eye. Such hair-splittings also are too apt to give the practisers of them a sort of spiritual pride, which makes them think that their creed alone is orthodoxy, and produces the reprehensible feeling which would express itself by the words "I am holier than thou." This is true schism, for such men mix least easily with their fellow Christians, owing to the narrowness of view which begets a narrowness of intelligence from the habit of scanning things from an unimportant standpoint. Such schism is to be deprecated in the highest possible degree, for in proportion as it flourishes charity withers and decays.

But there are, besides these main stems, to which no one is ashamed either that they or their friends should be attached, other ramifications, which may be called spurious branches of belief, concerning which it may be safely predicated that they are held in general disrepute, except by the small minorities which constitute them, and which may be characterised as peculiar and fantastic-truly deserving the name of sects in the proper application of the term. Such sects need scarcely be indicated by name,-examples of them will occur to every reader; and although we would not be so uncharitable as to imply that their votaries are otherwise than sincere in their attachment to the teachings of each in turn, we think it no breach of charity to infer some feebleness of conception, some crook or waywardness of intellect in those who follow them. These are for the most part the uneducated and lower classes of society; and if their belief keeps them from the ale-house, and makes them better parents and spouses, we would infinitely prefer their fantastic creed to none at all. But they are referred to here on account of the general lightness of estimation in which such creeds are held by the educated classes of the community.

Now, we who receive the doctrines of the New Church must be well aware of the ignorance and prejudice which exist everywhere concerning those doctrines. If people hear of a New Jerusalem Church, they at once set it down as some form of advanced Metho dism, and complacently smile. If the New Church is mentioned, it is at once misunderstood. Why a New Church? What other

Church can there be besides that established by Christ? "On this rock I will build My Church." That was 1850 years ago, and that Church has not undergone the vicissitudes of so many centuries to be now displaced by a New Church, without a founder. Or, if a founder be in some sense recognized in Swedenborg, the natural exclamation at once is, "What then, are we to prefer Swedenborg to Christ? Never! Away with this New Church-we are satisfied with the old! Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?" Indeed it would appear that the term or title of New Church is not the best chosen at all events by which to be introduced to the notice of Christians. All men are so much led away by first impressions, that it is no wonder if prejudice is at once excited by the expression. For it is misleading in its first and apparent sense. It is not a New Church, as we are aware, in the sense which most persons would apply to the term. It is not a New Church in the sense of supplanting the old, or being built on any other foundation than that on which Christ built,-but it is a New Church simply and purely in the sense of an expansion, or re-adaptation of the old to the re quirements of a new influx of light, which emancipates, as it were, and greatly enlarges the boundaries of the old. But who would regard the expression New Church in this light, until they had first partaken of that emancipation and experienced some of that enlargement, which implies something more than a mere nominal, imperfect and too often erroneous acquaintance with its doctrines?

Such considerations as the foregoing apply, indeed, only to the more enlightened, who are willing to give a courteous hearing to opinions which they are little inclined to accept,-but with the great majority of people the case is different. So comparatively unknown are the doctrines, so insignificant the number of those who are known to hold them, that most persons are inclined to look upon them with a certain amount of contempt, good-natured or ill-natured as the case may be. Nor do we conceive that any good purpose is gained by ignoring this feeling; and the object which the writer has in view can only be gained by looking such a state of things boldly in the face. Is it not

true, that, with the majority of persons, professing or otherwise, to be a Swedenborgian is to be a fanatic? and do such persons make any distinction in their minds between Swedenborgians and Irvingites, Southcottians, Morisonians, or any other fantastic form of belief which enfolds its chosen band of votaries and sectaries? Is it not true that in a Christian family, if one of its members declares himself a follower of Swedenborg, he thereby excites pain and consternation, and it may be animosity in the minds of his more orthodox relatives? Is he not in fact very much in the position of a Christianizing Jew? To be a Swedenborgian, we are fain to declare, is not to be considered a member of one of the reputable branches of belief; but, much as we regret it should be so, it is too generally classed among those spurious ramifications to which we have already referred as being held in disrepute.

With regard to Swedenborg himself, much as we revere him, we nevertheless know that his name commands but little respect from those who do not comprehend his doctrines or his claims to respect and reverence. Is it not true that the very mention of his name excites a prejudice? and however excellent the doctrine, if it is coupled with his name when advanced to a stranger, that fact closes the receptive faculty, and renders sober judgment more difficult, and the result unsatisfactory? We know this is most unreasonable, but that we cannot help the question for us is simply, Is it fact? "Swedenborg! Oh yes, I have read some of his writings, but they are too mystical for me; he was a dreamer, a visionary, and I can never believe he saw the things he has related-though no doubt he thought he did, poor man!" This is the sort of talk we hear from people who forget that the spiritual and eternal are not the natural and finite, and may well be mystical-who themselves unconsciously conceive mystically of God and Heaven,—who have dipped here and there into some of the most striking revelations of the author, which may well stagger any one who has not read far enough to trace the connection, the consistency, and the rationality of these revelations. But we know that of no one may we more truly say than of Swedenborg,

"Bring me to the test,

And I the matter will re-word, which madness

Would gambol from."

And did readers thus put him to the test, they would be convinced that, like Paul, he was not only "not mad, but spake forth the words of truth and soberness."

Let us now pass on to the third question :-Why does not the

influence of the doctrines indicated spread more rapidly, and if they are, as we are convinced they are, Truth, and must inevitably prevail, and sooner or later meet with general acceptance, how comes it that during the last century they have made so little progress? In thus speaking of the small progress the New Church appears to have made, we can only of course judge by the Societies, or New Church congregations, which have been formed in various parts of the kingdom. These Societies, we all know, are not numerous, and bear but a small proportion to the towns of a moderate size which the country contains. It may be said that these communities do not represent the real fact, as there are many persons who have not joined any of them, and have nevertheless received the writings of the New Church. Doubtless this is the case, and we can only hope that this is the case to a considerable extent, though it may be exceedingly difficult to take any census of such. In view, however, of the importance of the subject, and the present difficulty which exists of attracting attention to the doctrines advocated-in view, too, of the fact that these doctrines more especially appeal to the educated and intelligent classes of the community, are we to be satisfied with the progress which, as far as we are aware, a century has made? and do we feel that an interest has been raised commensurate with the merits of the subject? This is what we doubt. There are two points here worth consideration: First, that we live in an age of intelligence and inquiry, and are justified in expecting that of the many eager glances which are cast in every direction for the Truth not a few should alight upon the doctrines of the New Church;—and of the many highly educated and intelligent men seeking for a rational faith which shall not do violence to their intelligence, a large number might be expected to be arrested by the luminous views therein offered for consideration. The second point is, that, believing, as we do, that these doctrines contain Truth, and that they must sooner or later meet with general acceptance, we think we are justified in expecting large accessions among those who shall recognize Truth when it thus falls in their way. It may be said, What is Truth, which we thus seem to arrogate to have discovered? The answer is not hard ;-Truth, such as we have discovered through a Divine Light, is the consistent harmonizing of Revelation with our moral conscience and intellectual conceptions,--such a harmony as sustains no violence from the closest scrutiny of the Word of God, on the one hand,-nor, on the other, from the logical exercise of the mental faculties, or the unbiassed indications of our innate sense of

right and wrong;-such is our standard-such we cannot doubt is Truth.

There should be,—and who can doubt that there is,—something fascinating in Truth such as this is,-something that commends itself to mankind and commands acceptance. When Christ taught on earth, multitudes followed Him; doubtless many of these were attracted by His Divine Person, many more by His miraculous manifestations; but still there remains a large residuary of those who attached themselves to Him solely or principally for the love of the Truth which they recognized in the doctrines which He taught. And when His Name only was left on earth, those who had not known Him in the body flocked no less round the standard of Truth, and suffered grievous persecutions for its sake. How much of that genuine Truth has the lapse of centuries obscured! How greatly do the brightened intellects of the present century miss the lustre of primitive Truth in the research for which they are now going astray, and beating upon the rocks and quicksands of infidelity and materialism! May not the lamp of the New Church be retrimmed, and placed anew on high, to be a beacon at once to warn from error, and to attract to Truth. a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?" (Matt. iv. 21.)

"Is

Some of the causes which prevent the spread of the doctrines of the New Church have already been alluded to under the preceding question, and we venture to suggest that these causes lead to a widespread belief that the New Church is sectarian in its character. Far be it from us to say that such is the feeling or intention of New Churchmen as a body; but would it not appear so in the eyes of those who look upon us from without? When they see a denomination which they cannot distinguish from any other denomination, do they not regard it as only one more of the innumerable sects into which the Church of Christ is divided? Does it not repel them, and injure our cause? It is of no avail to say they are in error, and should judge better. It appears to us that we are in error, and should teach them better by exhibiting a more edifying example. No one who is not imbued with the spirit of the New Church, or who does not thoroughly understand its principles, can fully comprehend that it is no sect or division of believers in some special dogmas, but a higher and nobler, because purer, structure, built upon the broad and general basis of the Church of Christ, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone. But ought not this to appear on the face of it? Are there not many

« PreviousContinue »