Swedenborg's Maximus Homo/Memorial to the General Convention/Chapter 3
III.
REVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON THE MEMORIAL.
Editor N. J. Messenger:-Although my name did not appear among the ninety-four signers of the Memorial presented to the Convention last year by Mr. Clapp, it is known that I am, and have been for many years, in full accord with the views expressed in that document. And not only so, but it is an open secret that I was chosen to draft said Memorial, and accepted the appointment. Under these circumstances it was natural that I should feel some interest in the Report of the committee to which that Memorial was referred.
Their Report, printed in the Messenger, is now before me. And although the prayer of the petitioners is not granted, and a large part of the Report is occupied with matter quite irrelevant, and presented (unintentionally, no doubt) in a manner almost certain to mislead the reader in regard to the character and intent of the Memorial, it is on the whole quite as favorable as there was reason to expect; and its general tone and spirit indicate some progress latterly on the part of the Convention in the direction aimed at by the Memorial.
The Memorialists are therefore to be congratulated on the measure of success that has thus far attended their effort. It is hard for an individual to relinquish a false position which he has once assumed and long maintained, and sought to confirm by various arguments; but it is ten times harder, as every one knows, for an ecclesiastical body to do this. Therefore we should exercise great patience with the Convention, and be thankful for every indication of progress away from old errors, and toward higher truth and a better spirit.
First, let me say a word as to what the Memorial does not teach, nor ask the Convention to look upon with favor. It does not teach nor intimate that the professed doctrines of the other religious bodies in Christendom "are true and equally efficacious in the attainment of spiritual life with our own." It does not question the propriety or duty of teaching very distinctly "those truths in which the Lord reveals himself, . . . and by which men are led from darkness to light;" nor does it doubt or deny the expediency or charity of "taking a position in opposition to the religious opinions and doctrines which have been prevalent in the world." It does not deny that "truth is the essential instrument of forming good, and the means of communicating it;" nor does it offer or hint at reasons "for depreciating the value of New Church truths distinctly as such, or of relaxing in our efforts to communicate them." It says not a word in discouragement of the effort "to teach the doctrines of the New Church clearly, distinctly and explicitly as a new dispensation;" nor does it deny our right and duty "to set forth in as clear, distinct and emphatic a manner as possible, the excellence and power of the new spiritual truths by which the Lord is effecting his second coming." Neither does it deprecate the existence of separate organization based upon the doctrines of the New Church; but admits that such organization "has been useful," and adds: "We would not lessen but gladly increase its efficiency and usefulness." Nor does it, even by implication, object to the new organization taking the distinctive name by which its doctrines are known, provided it does not claim to be more or other than it really is—that is, more than a sect—more than a part, and not the whole, of the specific church on earth. True, it begs the Convention to "assume a more fraternal attitude toward other religious bodies;" but this is quite a different thing from expressing the hope or desire that it will "seek fellowship with them," as is more than intimated in this Report.
Now I do not believe that this committee really meant to impute to the Memorialists any of the things here denied; but the language of their Report could hardly fail, I think, to produce an erroneous impression upon the mind of a stranger.
But what is the platform of the Memorialists, and that on which they earnestly plead that the Convention, "the most conspicuous representative of the New Church at this time," would openly plant itself? It is not one of their own framing, but one revealed by the Lord from heaven. It is embodied in eleven brief, but clearly defined postulates, each commencing with "We believe," etc.; with more than fifty references to the heavenly doctrines wherein are distinctly taught the very things in regard to the nature and whereabout of the Lord's New Church, which the Memorialists say they believe. And so completely do the teachings in the passages referred to sustain the several postulates, that the committee have not ventured to call any of them in question, nor to show that their foundation is inadequate or insecure. They virtually concede the truth of every one of them—which is itself a gratifying and encouraging circumstance.
What, then, do the Memorialists ask the Convention to do? Simply to plant itself squarely on the platform so plainly laid down in the revealed doctrines of heaven; "to adopt and pursue a policy which will illustrate the large, conciliatory, catholic and loving spirit of the New Jerusalem." But this is general and indefinite. What did they mean by it? or what in particular did they ask of the Convention? Not, to acknowledge that the doctrines of the Greek, Romish or Presbyterian church are as true and precious as those revealed for the New Church. Not that it shall give up its own distinctive name or organization, or ask Methodists, Baptists, or Lutherans to adopt some other name than the one they bear. Not that it will "deprecate the value of New Church truths distinctly as such," or cease to proclaim their excellence and power, "in as clear, distinct and emphatic a manner as possible." Not that it will "seek fellowship" with other religious bodies who repudiate our doctrines and would repel "our fraternal advances." Nothing of this sort was asked of the Convention; but simply this, which occurs in the last but one pargraph of the Memorial:—
In reply to this specific request, the committee in their report say:—
Now, although it does not appear that the Convention adopted this report, it is fair to assume that the majority of those who heard it accept its views and positions; else there would have been a vote of dissent and a corresponding change of policy. Let us, therefore, examine it carefully in the light of revealed truth; for we fully agree with the committee that "there is nothing broader or more catholic than the truth;" and nothing safer, I would add, to stand and act upon.
Some forty years ago, the ordaining ministers of Convention reported that the Lord was no longer with any of the religious organizations of Christendom but the Swedenborgian or New Church; that He had "left" them all, and therefore they had no authority or power to baptize, or to perform any other church duty;" and if they pretended to do so, their baptism was to be regarded and treated as a nullity—utterly invalid and useless—"because we regard baptism into the New Church," said that committee, "as the only real baptism." And the Convention unanimously adopted that report, and straightway amended the "Rules" in accordance with its requirements. And although the Rule then adopted was subsequently rescinded, yet another rule was shortly after adopted and is still in force, which perpetuates the whole spirit and substance if not the form of that of 1839.
For see: The Convention continues to exclude from its ministry all who have not been baptized by a recognized minister of the nominal New Church, however they may have been baptized by some other minister. Thus some are compelled to accept rebaptism, without seeing its necessity, propriety, or use; else they must be excluded from the ranks of the reoognized ministry, or maintain an attitude of apparent hostility (on this subject, at least) to the general body. And having themselves consented (under such compulsion) to be rebaptized, it is not strange that they should "strongly recommend" the same to all of their respective flocks "who come from other religious bodies." And for a layman to refuse to act upon such a recommendation indorsed by the general body is what very few are inclined to do. It would seem to most people rather presumptuous—would seem like assuming to be wiser than those whom they look to as teachers; yes, like setting themselves against the proper authorities in the church. The existing rule of Convention,[1] therefore, requiring the rebaptism of its ministers, is, in its spirit and practical working, substantially the same as the amended Rule of 1889.
And what do we mean when we repeat the ordinance of baptism on one (be he minister or layman) who has already received it in some other Christian communion?—for actions are quite as significant as words. What do we proclaim to the church and the world by that solemn act? Plainly this: that the candidate has never before received Christian baptism; that he now for the first time enters the outer gate of the visible Christian Church; and therefore that the communion in which he was first baptized is not to be regarded as Christian, or as worthy of the Christian name. Do we not, by the practice of rebaptism—a practice authorized and upheld by the General Convention—say all this as plainly as if we said it in words? Do we not by our act say to the candidate, You are now for the first time introduced among Christians in both worlds—introduced into the Church of Christ? For nothing is more plainly taught by Swedenborg than that baptism is the initiatory rite—the first gate of entrance to the church; and an initiatory rite is, from its very nature, one that is not to be repeated.
Now, is the attitude in which such solemn proclamation places the organized New Church a graceful or becoming one? Is it one of that "kindly, fraternal recognition of other Christians" which the Memorialists a year ago prayed for? Is it one calculated to win the respect and affection of those outside, or to promote the growth of humility and other kindred graces among those inside, of the Convention? Or—a more important question still—is it the true and proper attitude, or one justiied by the spirit and teachings of the New Jerusalem?—for the Convention is bound to act according to "the heavenly doctrines" which it professes to believe. Let us see.
There are several great religions in the world each of which has its peculiar outward sign whereby its believers are distinguished from those of other religions. (T. C. R. n. 678.) These signs may be compared to the different flags by which different nationalities are distinguished. The flag may wave over a national fortress, a legislative hall, a literary institution, the merchant's warehouse, the millionaire's mansion, or the pioneer's log-cabin; but in all cases its significance is the same, however those who fling it to the breeze may understand or misunderstand the constitution of their country, its principles, policy, or laws. And baptism is the revealed or divinely appointed sign of the Christian religion. It is not a sign of the receiver's degree of spiritual enlightenment, or of his advancement in moral or religious life; not a sign of how he understands Christianity, or of his measure of fidelity to its revealed truths, any more than the national flag waving above my roof is a sign of my degree of political intelligence, or of how well or ill I understand the constitution and laws of my country. Neither is it, as some seem to think, a sign of any particular doctrinal system, however true or false. No: it is simply a sign that those receiving it belong to the great body of religionists known as Christians; that they profess the Christian religion, accept the Sacred Scripture as the Word of God, and purpose to govern their lives according to its teachings.
That this is the plain teaching of the heavenly doctrines no intelligent receiver of them will pretend to deny. For repeatedly does Swedenborg tell us that baptism is "the Christian sign," or "a sign that those baptized are of the Christian Church." Its first use is "introduction into the Christian church, and insertion among Christians in the spiritual world." The rite itself, by whomsoever administered, has no cleansing or renewing efficacy. It signifies spiritual cleansing by means of truth from the Word. "It was given merely as a sign and memorial that the recipients thereof are to be purified from evils." And "unless man's internal is purified from evils and falsities, baptism has no more efficacy than the washing of cups and platters by the Jews;" and "it contributes no more to salvation . . . than a bishop's gown contributes to the proper discharge of his ministerial duties." In and of itself it effects nothing, though it signifies a great deal. Being only a sign, "it does nothing more than render those baptized known as belonging to the Christian Church." Therefore it is very properly administered to a person as soon as he comes to believe in the Christian religion, and in Jesus Christ as its founder; or, to cite again the heavenly doctrines, it is properly administered to "all foreign proselytes, both old and young, who are converted to the Christian religion, and this before they have been instructed, from their mere confession of a desire to embrace Christianity." (T. C. R. n. 673, '76, '77, '78.)
Surely this is plain enough. Yet, strange to say, the Report before us ignores it all, and virtually denies its truth. Or, if not this it proclaims (without any authority) a new doctrine on the subject, which is, that a change in one's views of the Sacred Scripture and of its doctrinal teachings, as hitherto held, necessitates or justifies a repetition of the baptismal rite. The committee seem to quite overlook the doctrine revealed from heaven on this subject, and talk as if we had a right to use this divinely appointed ordinance according to our own notions, and repeat it as often as we may think its repetition would "be of great spiritual use." And they speak of it as "a most effective way of expressing belief"—not in the Christian religion merely, but in a special type or interpretation of this religion—"in the doctrines of the New Church." (!) And the Convention, by its practice, plainly declares that there is but one type of Christianity, and that the Swedenborgian type; that Swedenborgians are the only Christians now on earth, and their baptism, therefore, the only Christian or valid baptism. And how can this attitude be otherwise than offensive to other religious bodies? It is also false, and unjust to the teachings of Swedenborg, hurtful to the Convention as a representative of the New Church, and a hindrance to the spread of the heavenly truths. Can there be the slightest doubt, therefore, that the speedy abandonment of this attitude would gladden the hearts of angels, and promote the interests and progress of the New Church on earth?
Look, again, at the second use of baptism, which is: "That the Christian may know and acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and Saviour, and follow Him." (T. C. R. 681.) And we are told that the true acknowledgment and worship of the Lord is "to live according to his precepts" (A. C. 9193); that "acknowledgment belongs not to the lips but to the life" (A. C. 1162); that "the church is not in those who acknowledge the Lord in doctrine but not in the life" ' (ib. 4899); that "no others form any part of the church," but those "who from the heart acknowledge the Divine of the Lord, learn truths from Him by the Word, and do them" (Ap. Ex. 388); and that "the church is only where men live" according to the precepts of the Word, since a man "first becomes a church when he acts from charity," not when he first "knows and thinks according to doctrine," however true and heavenly the doctrine may be. (A. C. 916.)
Now, can anything be further from the truth than the belief or assertion that Swedenborgians are the only people who acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ as Redeemer and Saviour, and obey his precepts? Can anything be more contrary to the teachings of the heavenly doctrines than such an assertion? Can we conceive of anything more unjust or more offensive to other Christians? Yet this committee, apparently without intending to do, or being aware that they were doing, anything especially unbecoming or heinous, justifies the Convention in its unjust and most unseemly attitude, and bids it hold on to the practical denial (by its rule and recommendations) of the right of any other religious bodies to the Christian ordinances or the Christian name.
And we are brought to the same conclusion when we contemplate the third or final use of baptism as now revealed; which is, "that the man may be regenerated." And the means of regeneration, we are told, are in the possession of all who profess the Christian religion, "because a Christian possesses the Word in which the means of regeneration are plainly described, those means being faith in the Lord and charity toward the neighbor." All Christians, then, have abundant means of attaining the final end of baptism, because they all have the Word. And Swedenborg adds: "Since these three uses follow in order, and unite in the last, and consequently in the conception of the angels cohere as one, therefore when baptism is administered, read of in the \Vord or mentioned, the angels who are present do not understand bap~ tism, but regeneration." Do the angels see in the ordinance anything more or better than this, I wonder, when it is administered by a professed and recognized New Church minister? or anything less or worse in it, when performed by a Methodist, Episcopal or Congregational minister?
The committee refer more than once in their Report to the Roman Catholics, as if for the purpose of weakening the force of some portions of the Memorial. I had supposed that where the church or churches in Christendom are alluded to in that document, intelligent New Churchmen would understand that the same was meant as is meant by Swedenborg when he speaks of "the churches in the Christian world"—including under that designation only Protestant churches. But as the committee seem not to be aware of any such distinction in the Writings, and have, therefore, been led into some apparent misapprehension of the Memorial, I will refer them to the following passage in N. J. D. n. 8:—
This passage, written the very next year after the Last Judgment, shows that Swedenborg regarded the Protestant churches of even that day as Christian churches; and consequently regarded their baptism as Christian baptism. And it will not be denied, I presume, that the Protestant churches of our own times are considerably more Christian than they were a century and a quarter ago. Is it, then, a higher or a lower degree of, illumination than that of the Lord's chosen servant, which has made the discovery that the Protestant churches of to-day are not Christian churches, and their baptism, therefore, not Christian baptism?
Then, in the sentence immediately preceding the passage just quoted, the author says: "I will, by way of introduction to the doctrine which follows (the doctrine of the New Jerusalem, be it remembered), make some observations on the doctrine of charity as held by the ancients," which doctrine had then become so nearly extinct, that "the churches throughout the whole Christian world made their differences to depend upon points of faith." And to show that this state of things is not to be continued—that a difference "upon points of faith" is not to be allowed to separate churches, and set them in even "seeming antagonism " to each other under the New Jerusalem dispensation, such a thing being contrary to the genius of the New Christian Church, and utterly repugnant to its spirit—he proceeds to unfold the doctrine of charity as it existed in the ancient churches, and which is to be resuscitated and to live again in the New Jerusalem in something like its primeval vigor. And he says:—
"The doctrine of charity, which is the doctrine of life, was "the essential doctrine in the ancient churches. And this doctrine conjoined all churches, and thereby formed one church out of many. For they acknowledged all those as members of the church who lived in the good of charity, and called them brethren, however much they might differ respecting truths which at this day are called matters of faith. In these they instructed one another, . . . nor were they offended if one did not accede to the opinion of another, knowing that every one receives truth according to the degree of good in which he is." And he closes this Introductory Chapter, and at the same time signalizes the rank or value of this ancient doctrine, and the supreme place which properly belongs to it, and which it will occupy in the New Church, by saying, as the crowning evidence of its importance as well as of its truth: "The whole Sacred Scripture is nothing else than the doctrine of love or charity, which the Lord also teaches [quoting here the two great commandments in Matt. xxii, 37—39 and adding]: The Law and the Prophets are the word in general and in particular." (N. J. D. n. 9.)
This reveals to us the heavenly spirit of the New Jerusalem. And substantially the same thing is taught in numerous other passages. As where we are told that, "when life conjoins [Christians], doctrine does not [and should not] separate them. But if only doctrine conjoins, they separate and make as many churches as there are doctrines. (A. C. 4468.) "If charity were in the first place . . . there would not be more churches than one, by distinguishing between them according to opinions concerning the truths of faith." (Ib. 6761.) "If love to the Lord and charity toward the neighbor were regarded as the essentials, . . . out of many churches, however they might differ as to doctrinals and rituals, there would be formed one church." (Ib. 2385.) "In this case, too, every one would say of another, in whatsoever doctrine or external worship he might be principled, This is my brother; I see that he worships the Lord, and is a good man." (Ib.)
Now, is the attitude of the General Convention toward other religious bodies—an attitude which this committee justifies and endeavors to defend—one which accords with this plain teaching, or which fitly illustrates the charity and catholicity of the New Jerusalem? Is it not one which better exemplifies the character of the churches as they were at the time Swedenborg wrote, and of which he says: "At this day, it is doctrine which constitutes the church, but not life." "For the churches at this day separate themselves according to dogmas; and he who believes otherwise than as the dogma teaches, is cast out from their communion, and is also defamed." (A. C. 4689.)
And have not the Memorialists, therefore, and the hundreds of other receivers who sympathize with them, cause for regret, not that the platform as laid down in the preamble of the Convention's constitution is not broad enough, but that the Convention should have lost sight of, or practically discarded, one of the main planks in its platform? Nor can we suppose the keenness of their regret to be much lessened by the reflection that such practical abandonment of one or more planks in a platform, is no uncommon circumstance with the political parties of our country and times.
But "religious bodies of every name," say this committee, "are organized on the basis of religious doctrines." We judge "every religious body by its standards" or creed. "Bodies of men must be judged by the general principles they adopt." The General Convention, therefore, "is a New Church body, because it adopts the principles of the New Church and is organized to propagate them." And it seems to this committee "simply absurd to claim that these [other] religious bodies are New Church," since "they were not organized to propagate its principles," but "to propagate a tri-personal trinity, a vicarious atonement, and many other doctrines which are directly contrary to the principles of the New Church.'"
This is quite plausible, and some may be ready to accept it as conclusive answer to the Memorial. But its fallacy will appear on a slight examination. The fundamental error here involved, and which runs through the entire Report, is the very same that underlies the reasoning of all previous Reports to the Convention on the subject of baptism, and vitiates all their conclusions. It is that in regard to the nature and whereabout of the true church of the Lord. This is not and never can be a visible organization of any kind. For to constitute a congregation or body of people a real church, Swedenborg says "it is necessary that every individual in the congregation be a church; for every general implies parts similar to itself." (A. C. 4292.) Is there any such organized body of people on earth? or has there ever been? Yet there is no objection to naming (by way of distinction) a body organized for the purpose of promulgating the New Church doctrines, a New Church body, provided we do not allow the name to mislead us into thinking that it is the genuine article. The Memorial nowhere objects to this.
But the specific and real New Church, according to Swedenborg, consists of those and those only "who believe in the Lord and live according to his commandments in the Word." (A. R. 925.) Only the Lord Himself knows just who and where these people are. But we cannot doubt that they are widely scattered. We cannot doubt that some of them are in all the Christian churches of to-day—though it is to be hoped that a somewhat larger percentage, and a somewhat better quality than the average, is to be found in the organized New Church. But that by far the larger portion of the New Church is now outside of the organization bearing its name, is plain from Swedenborg's explanation of the meaning of that "great multitude". (Rev. vii, 9) which he says are "in the Lord's New Heaven and New Church," but composing the external thereof, which is to the internal about in the proportion of the body to the head.
But what are the central principles of the New Church?—They are all contained in the Word of God, and the essentials of them are, therefore, accessible to all who read and reverence the Word. For "the Word in its literal sense," we are told, "is like a man clothed, whose face and hands are naked. Everything in the Word, necessary to a man's faith and life, and also to his salvation, is naked; but the rest is clothed; and in many places where it is clothed, it is visible through the clothes." (T. C. R. 229.) And what is declared to be the primary and most essential doctrine of the New Church? Is it not that contained in the two great commandments which embrace the sum and substance of all that the Law and the Prophets teach? For, speaking of "the New Church which is called the Holy Jerusalem," Swedenborg says: "Its doctrine is the doctrine of love to the Lord and charity toward the neighbor." (Ap. Ex. 732; also 721, 724, 730, 758.) This doctrine is what is signified by the male child which the sun-clad woman brought forth, and which the dragon stood ready to devour; and this woman is the same that is called "the Bride the Lamb's wife." And "the doctrine signified by the male child, is especially the doctrine of love to the Lord and charity toward the neighbor, that is, the doctrine of the good of life." (Ap. Ex. 724.)
Here we have "the principles of the New Church," its great and essential doctrine, the very pith and marrow of all its teachings, in a nutshell. And all who are in the acknowledgment and life of this doctrine are in and of the New Church, being in conjunction with the Lord and in association with the new angelic heavens. But all who do not live according to this doctrine, are not of the New Church, nor in conjunction with the Lord, whatever be their professed beliefs, or whatever church organization they may belong to. And all who accept and live this primary Christian doctrine, do really (though they may not professedly or formally) acknowledge the Divine Human; for, "in respect to these, the Lord's Divine Humanity is in their hearts." (A. C. 4724.) But they who do not live this doctrine, in their hearts deny and reject the Divine Humanity, however they may acknowledge it with their lips (A. C. 2326, 2354, 2357, 3263.) It is needless to cite passages in proof of all this. The signers of this report and all intelligent New Churchmen know that they are numerous, and could be quoted by the hundred.
And is there a congregation in Christendom to-day, wherein this most essential doctrine, this pith and marrow of the New Christianity, could not be openly proclaimed and fervently advocated without offence to or opposition from either clergy or laity? Is it not the ardent desire of most ministers of whatever denomination, that their people should obey the requirements of this fundamental doctrine? Their counsel and instruction in the way of help and guidance, may not be so wise or good as ours—for their light is not so clear and strong; but most of them counsel prayer, the belief in and the looking to Jesus Christ as the only Redeemer and Saviour, the reverent reading of the Word, and obedience to the commandments of the Decalogue. And can there be any reasonable doubt that there are to-day a thousand times as many in the other religious bodies of Christendom as there are in our own, who are earnestly striving—and with some measure of success—to live this primary doctrine of our religion? And consequently that much the largest portion of the Lord's New Church on earth, is now outside the organization bearing its name?
If these things are really so (and can there be any reasonable doubt that they are?), how unspeakably sad and unseemly is the attitude of the New-Church General Convention toward all other Christian churches! An attitude which many intelligent receivers of our doctrines deeply deplore, and which, I should think, would come near to making the angels weep. For by its Rule and practice the Convention virtually turns its back upon them all, denies their title to the Christian name and ordinances, and refuses to acknowledge that they constitute any part of the specific or Christian Church, or that they are contributing anything to its advancement or growth. And a committee of the Convention's most intelligent and trusted ministers, with its President for chairman, justify and encourage that body in this false, unchristian and hurtful attitude—hurtful alike to itself, to other Christians, and to the great Cause which it professes to love! In view of all this, is it strange that other denominations should refuse to recognize Swedenborgians as "evangelical," and should sometimes refuse them the use of their halls and churches when asked for the purpose of promulgating New-Church doctrines? Our attitude certainly does not reveal much of an evangelical spirit. The thing which seems to me far more strange, is, that a minister of the Convention should ever ask or accept the use of such halls or churches, or that it should ever be granted when asked for such a purpose.
True, "a tri-personal trinity, a vicarious atonement," and other kindred errors are yet to be found in the creeds, and are sometimes set forth in religious publications, and taught from the pulpit. But the committee are much mistaken if they suppose that these things form the staple of our present pulpit or journalistic teachings. They are equally mistaken, too, if they imagine that the churches which still hold these things in their "standards," were organized or exist mainly for the purpose of propagating them. The pulpit and the press of to-day touch these subjects infrequently, and then very briefly and cautiously, as if they would be glad to avoid them altogether if they could. And if there are some who still cling to them with a fierce and feverish dogmatism, the extreme anxiety which they sometimes betray "to preserve the husks of dead men's thoughts," lest they should incur the suspicion of heresy, only reveals a secret consciousness on their part that the former faith has leaked, or is fast leaking, out of its symbols. We know that the terminologies of religion usually become vague and quite emptied of their meaning, long before they fall into complete desuetude. As Rev. E. H. Sears justly remarks:
And so the churches of Christendom may change—are rapidly changing—in their spirit and principles, without any material change in their theological nomenclatures. These latter belong rather to the external, and do not touch the internal—the real heart and living thought of the churches of to-day—no, nor hinder the influx into them of the new light and life nearly so much as many imagine. Even while I am writing, a letter under date of June 19th, inst., comes to me from an aged and very intelligent receiver of our doctrines, from which I make the following interesting and pertinent quotation:—
Nor is the case here described an exceptional one, or by any means rare. We should find, if the whole truth were known, that there are literally hundreds of the same sort in our own country; else the gratuitous distribution of "51,500 volumes of the writings of Swedenborg" among "clergymen and theological students" within the last few years, and which is reported as among the encouraging signs of the new times, has been a reckless waste of money which we ought rather to mourn over than to rejoice at. And, strange as it may seem, even the chairman of this very committee, and presumably, therefore, the author of the document under review, in another paper (his Annual Addrees) read before the last Convention and published in the same number of the Messenger as the Report, seems to see that "the principles of the New Church" are rapidly flowing into, and changing the character of, the old organizations, notwithstanding their creeds remain unchanged. For he says:―
True—obviously true; and the very thing which a few (an exceeding few, however) of the careful students of the Heavenly Doctrines have been proclaiming to somewhat reluctant ears for the last quarter of a century; the very thing, too, which Swedenborg foresaw and foretold immediately after the Last Judgment. For he foresaw that the churches in Christendom would all undergo an internal change—would be renewed in spirit, and receive new and higher enlightenment—while still clinging to their old nomenclatures and their outward forms. For, speaking of the then future church, by which he meant the New Church (for the Old had ceased to exist), he says:—
This teaching is very plain, and the inference to be drawn from it is equally obvious, and the passages in which it is found are all referred to in the Memorial. But I cannot help thinking that the committee failed to give them the consideration they deserve; for had they done so, they would hardly have referred to certain old dogmas still patent in the creeds of some of the churches, in justification of the Convention's attitude toward such bodies, or as an adequate reason for refusing the Memorialists' request. They would have seen or reflected that these are but the dry husks of a decaying orthodoxy, beneath which lie concealed and germinant the spirit and principles of the New Jerusalem; nay, that these very churches constitute the bulk of the visible New Church to-day, containing within their several inclosures a multitude of sweet and saintly souls who have had an inward experience of the Lord's new and glorious advent, and who make by far the largest part of the invisible but real New Church now on earth.
No: It is a great mistake to imagine that the pulpit of to-day dwells often or lays the chief emphasis on "doctrines which are directly contrary to the principles of the New Church." Far oftener and with much stronger emphasis does it dwell on the great fundamentals of the New Church—love to the Lord and charity toward the neighbor. The burden of its teaching is not what it was in the middle of the last century—the tri-personality of God, a vicarious atonement, the resurrection of the material body, and justification by faith alone—however these may occasionally crop out. It is rather the Divinity of Christ; Christ in the life; the beauty and loveliness of his character; the riches of his grace; the power of his love; the sinner's need of looking to Him, believing in Him, trusting in Him, and obeying Him; the importance of prayer and the study of the Scriptures; and the indispensable necessity of keeping the commandments. Of course, more or less error mingles with this teaching—which may be said of the teaching of all fallible mortals. But it is so obviously Christian in its main features—the larger portion is so pervaded by the spirit and principles of the New Christianity, that the next generation of professed New Churchmen will, I am confident, look back with astonishment on the present attitude of the General Convention toward all the other Christian churches; and will be still more astonished that the fervent appeal of last year's Memorial elicited from that body no sympathetic response, and that not a solitary voice was lifted in Convention in advocacy of its one special request.
Germanown, Pa., June, 24, 1881.
- ↑ It affords us pleasure to state that, since this Review was written, the rule of Convention here referred to has been rescinded, and rebaptism, though still recommended, is no longer insisted on as a pre-requisite to admission to the ministry in the New Church General Convention. And there are now in the Convention some five or six ministers who have been admitted to membership without being rebaptized. Had the rule remained in force, these ministers would have been obliged to accept rebaptism contrary to their personal conviction as to its propriety, or remain outside of the organization. The rescinding of this rule, therefore, affords ground to hope that rebaptism will ere long cease to be practiced or recommended by New Church ministers when receiving candidates into membership.