Chapter 13

“5. That the change in regeneration is a _moral_ change, consisting in a new, holy disposition, or governing purpose of the heart, as a permanent principle of action; in which change, the sinner transfers the _supreme_ affection of his heart from all inferior objects to the living God, chooses him as the portion of his soul, and his service and glory as his supreme good, and thus, in respect to moral character, becomes a _new man_.

“6. That this moral change is never produced in the human heart by _moral suasion_, i. e., by the mere influence of truth and motives, as the Pelagians affirm, but is produced by the influence of the Holy Spirit, operating on the mind through the truth, and in perfect consistency with the nature of moral action, and laws of moral agency.

“7. That all men (in the words of the article of your church) may accept of the offers of salvation freely made to them in the gospel, but that no one will do this, except he be drawn by the Father.

“8. That the necessity of the influence of the Holy Spirit in regeneration results solely from the voluntary perverseness of the sinner’s heart, or disinclination to serve God, which, while it leaves him a complete moral agent, and without excuse for neglecting his duty, suspends his actual salvation on the sovereign will of God.

“9. That the renewing grace of God is _special_, in distinction from that which is common, and is resisted by the sinful mind, inasmuch as it is that which is designed to secure, and does infallibly secure, the conversion of the sinner.

“10. That all who are renewed by the Holy Spirit are elected or chosen of God from eternity, that they should be holy, not on account of foreseen faith, or good works, but according to the good pleasure of his will.

“11. That all who are renewed by the Holy Spirit, will, through his continual influence, persevere in holiness to the end, and obtain eternal life.

“Such is my faith in respect to some of the lending doctrines of the gospel. These doctrines I preach; these I teach in the theological department of this Seminary; these I have repeatedly published to the world. With what truth or justice any regard me as a ‘teacher of theology, introducing heresy into our churches,’ the candid can judge.

“But it may be asked, whether, after all, there are not some points on which I differ from my brethren generally, or, at least, from some of them. I answer,—It would be strange if any two man should be found to agree exactly in all the minute matters of religious opinion. With respect, however, to what is properly considered the Orthodox or Calvinistic SYSTEM of doctrines, as including the great FACTS of Christianity, and as opposed to, and distinguished from, the Unitarian, Pelagian, and Arminian _systems_, I suppose there is between the Orthodox ministry and myself an entire agreement. In respect to comparatively minor points, and philosophical theories, and modes of defending the Calvinistic system of doctrines, there has always been, as you are aware, a diversity of opinion, with freedom of discussion, among the Calvinists in this country, especially in New England, but which has never impaired their fellowship or mutual confidence. To these topics of difference, greater or less importance has been attached by different individuals. In respect to some of these, (and, in respect to them, I suppose myself to agree with a large majority of our Calvinistic clergy,) I will now briefly but frankly state what I do _not_, and what I do, believe.

“I do _not_ believe that the posterity of Adam are, in the proper sense of the language, guilty of his sin; or that the ill desert of that sin is truly theirs; or that they are punished for that sin. But I do believe that, by the wise and holy constitution of God, all mankind, in consequence of Adam’s sin, become sinners by their own act.

“I do _not_ believe that the nature of the human mind, which God creates, is itself sinful; or that God punishes men for the nature which he creates; or that sin pertains to any thing in the mind which precedes all conscious mental exercise or action, and which is neither a matter of consciousness nor of knowledge. But I do believe that sin, universally, is no other than selfishness, or a _preference_ of one’s self to all others,—of some inferior good to God; that this free, voluntary preference is a permanent principle of action in all the unconverted; and that this is sin, and all that in the Scriptures is meant by sin. I also believe that such is the _nature_ of the human mind, that it becomes the occasion of universal sin in men in all the appropriate circumstances of their existence, and that, therefore, they are truly and properly said to be sinners _by nature_.

“I do _not_ believe that sin can be proved to be the necessary means of the greatest good, and that, as such, God prefers it, on the whole, to holiness in its stead; or that a God of sincerity and truth punishes his creatures for doing that which he, on the whole, prefers they should do, and which, as the means of good, is the best thing they can do. But I do believe that holiness, as the means of good, may be better than sin; that it may be true that God, all things considered, prefers holiness to sin in all instances in which the latter takes place, and, therefore, sincerely desires that all men should come to repentance, though, for wise and good reasons, he _permits_, or does not prevent, the existence of sin. I do _not_ believe that it can be proved that an omnipotent God would be _unable_ to secure more good by means of the perfect and universal obedience of his creatures, if they would render it, than by means of their sin. But I do believe that it may involve a dishonorable limitation of his power to suppose that he could not do it.(3)

“I do _not_ believe that the grace of God can be truly said to be _irresistible_, in the primary, proper import of this term. But I do believe that, in all cases, it _may be_ resisted by man as a free moral agent, and that, when it becomes effectual to conversion, as it infallibly does in the case of all the elect, it is _unresisted_.

“I do _not_ believe that the grace of God is necessary, as Arminians and some others maintain, to render man an accountable agent, and responsible for rejecting the offers of eternal life. But I do believe that man would be such an agent, and thus responsible, were no such grace afforded, and that otherwise ‘grace would be no more grace.’

“I do _not_ believe that it is necessary that the sinner, in using the means of regeneration, should commit sin in order to become holy. But I do believe that, as a moral agent, he is qualified so to use these means, i. e., the truth of God when present to his mind, as to become holy at once; that he is authorized to believe that, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, this _may be_ done; and that, except in so doing, he cannot be truly and properly said to _use_ the means of regeneration.

“I do _not_ believe that we are authorized to assure the sinner, as Arminians do, and some others also, that the Holy Spirit is always ready to convert him. But I do believe that we are authorized to assure any sinner that it _may be true_ that the Holy Spirit is now ready to convert him; ‘that God PERADVENTURE will now give him repentance;’ and that thus, in view of the possible intervention of divine influence, we remove what would otherwise be a ground of fatal discouragement to the sinner, when we exhort him to immediate repentance.

“I have dwelt the more on some of these particulars, because much pains has been taken, by some individuals, to make the impression that I have departed from the true faith respecting the influences of the Holy Spirit, even denying his influences altogether. So far is this from the fact, that, as you well know, no one attaches higher importance to this doctrine than I do, preaches it more decisively, or appreciates more highly its practical relations and bearings. In my own view, the power of the gospel on the mind of the sinner very much consists in the two great facts of his complete moral agency as the basis of his obligation, of his guilt, and of his duty;—and of his dependence on the sovereign grace of God, resulting from his voluntary perverseness in sin. Without the latter, we could, in my opinion, neither show the Christian what thanks he owes his Deliverer from sin, nor awaken the sinner to flee from the wrath to come. This doctrine seems to be indispensable to destroy the presumptuous reliance of the sinner on future repentance, as it shows him how fearfully he provokes an offended God to withhold the grace on which all depends. At the same time, one thing is indubitably certain, viz., that God never revealed the doctrine of the sinner’s dependence on his Spirit, to present the sinner from doing his duty at once. God does not call sinners to instant compliance with the terms of life, and then assure them that such compliance is utterly out of the question, and to be wholly despaired of. The opposite impression, however, is not uncommon; and it is an error not less fatal to immediate repentance, than the fond hope of repenting hereafter. Both are to be destroyed; and he who does not preach the gospel in that manner which tends to destroy both, preaches it but imperfectly.

“In the earlier revivals of this country, great prominence was given, in the preaching, to the doctrine of dependence, in the forms of regeneration, election, &c. This was what was to be expected from the Calvinistic preachers of the time, in view of the prevalence of Arminianism. In the more recent revivals, however, a similar prominence seems to be given to moral agency, in the forms of present obligation to duty, its present practicability, &c. The preaching, thus distinguished in its more prominent characteristics, has been undeniably owned and blessed by the Spirit of God, although we are very apt to believe that what is true of one kind of preaching at one time, must be true of it at another. Now, I believe that both the doctrines of dependence and moral accountability must be _admitted by the public mind_, to secure upon that mind the full power of the gospel. I also believe that greater or less _prominence_ should be given to the one or the other of these doctrines, according to the prevailing state of public opinion. When, at the earlier periods alluded to, the doctrine of dependence was dwelt on chiefly, (I do not suppose exclusively,) the public mind believed enough—I might say too much—concerning the free moral agency of man, and had not so well learned as since to pervert the doctrine of dependence to justify the waiting attitude of a passive recipient. And, then, both doctrines told with power on the mind and the conscience, and, through God, were attended with great and happy results. But the prominence given to the doctrine of dependence, in preaching, was continued, until, if I mistake not, it so engrossed the public attention, and so obscured or weakened the doctrine of responsibility, that many fell into the opposite error of quietly waiting for God’s interposition. Hence, when this prevailing error is again corrected by a more prominent exhibition of man’s responsibility, in the form of immediate obligation, &c., the power of both doctrines is again combined on the public mind, and we see the same or even greater results in revivals of religion. Nor would it be strange if the latter kind of preaching should, in its turn, prevail so exclusively and so long, that the practical influence of the doctrine of dependence should be greatly impaired, to be followed with another dearth of revivals and a quiet reliance of sinful men on their own self-sufficiency. On this subject, I have often, in view of the tendency of the human mind to vacillate from one extreme to the other, expressed my apprehensions. In some of my brethren, whom I love and respect, I see what I esteem a _disproportioned_ estimate of the importance of preaching dependence; in others, whom I equally respect, I see what I regard as a _disproportioned_ estimate of the importance of preaching moral responsibility. In regard to myself, I can say that I have aimed, in this respect, rightly to divide the word of truth, and that those discourses in which I have best succeeded in bringing the two doctrines to bear, in their combined force, on the mind, have been more blessed to the awakening and conversion of sinners, than almost any others which I preach. When both doctrines are wisely and truly presented, the sinner has no resting-place. Ho cannot well avoid a sense of guilt while proposing to remain in his sins, for he sees that he is a free moral agent, under all the responsibilities of such an agent to immediate duty. He cannot well presume on his resolution of future repentance, for he sees that sovereign, injured grace may at once abandon him to hopeless sin. He is thus shut up to the faith,—to the immediate performance of his duty. In accordance with these views, I aim, in my instructions to those who are preparing for the ministry, to inculcate the importance of a consistent, well-proportioned exhibition of the two great doctrines of the sinner’s dependence and responsibility, that, in this respect, they may hold the minds of their hearers under the full influence of that gospel which is the power of God to salvation.

“I have thus stated, more minutely, perhaps, than you anticipated, my views and opinions. I could wish that they might be satisfactory to all our Orthodox brethren. I have no doubt that they will be to very many, and to some who have been alarmed by groundless rumors concerning my unsoundness in the faith. With respect to what I have called _leading doctrines_, I regard these as among the cardinal truths of the Christian system. They are truths to which I attach the highest importance, and in which my faith is more and more confirmed, the more I examine the word of God. To _some_ of those of which I have spoken as _comparatively minor points_, I attach a high importance in their practical bearings and doctrinal connections. They are points, however, in regard to which there is more or less diversity of opinion among the Orthodox; and, as it is not my intention nor my practice to denounce others as heretics, merely because they differ from me in these matters, so I should be pleased with the reciprocation of the like catholicism on their part.”

SWEDENBORGIANS, OR, THE NEW JERUSALEM CHURCH.

Emanuel Swedenborg, the father of this sect, was the son of a bishop of West Gothnia, in the kingdom of Sweden, whose name was Swedberg, a man of considerable learning and celebrity in his time. The son was born at Stockholm, January 29, 1688, and died in London, 1772. He enjoyed early the advantages of a liberal education, and, being naturally endowed with uncommon talents for the acquirement of learning, his progress in the sciences was rapid and extensive, and he soon distinguished himself by several publications in the Latin language, which gave proof of equal genius and erudition. It may reasonably be supposed that, under the care of his pious and reverend father, our author’s religious instruction was not neglected. This, indeed, appears plain from the general tenor of his life and writings, which are marked with strong and lively characters of a mind deeply impressed with a sense of the divine Being, and of all the relative duties thence resulting. He was ennobled in the year 1719, by Queen Ulrica Eleonora, and named Swedenborg, from which time he took his seat with the nobles of the equestrian order, in the triennial assembly of the states.

Baron Swedenborg had many eccentricities; but perhaps the most remarkable circumstance respecting him was his asserting that, during the uninterrupted period of twenty-seven years, he enjoyed open intercourse with the world of departed spirits, and during that time was instructed in the internal sense of the sacred Scriptures, hitherto undiscovered.

_Articles of Faith, Of the New Church, signified by the New Jerusalem in the Revelation._

“1. That JEHOVAH GOD, the Creator and Preserver of heaven and earth, is Love Itself and Wisdom Itself, or Good Itself and Truth Itself: That he is One both in Essence and in Person, in whom, nevertheless, is the Divine Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are the Essential Divinity, the Divine Humanity, and the Divine Proceeding, answering to the soul, the body, and the operative energy, in man: And that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is that GOD.

“2. That JEHOVAH GOD himself descended from heaven, as Divine Truth, which is the Word, and took upon him Human Nature for the purpose of removing from man the powers of hell, and restoring to order all things in the spiritual world, and all things in the church: That he removed from man the powers of hell, by combats against and victories over them; in which consisted the great work of Redemption: That by the same acts, which were his temptations, the last of which was the passion of the cross, he united, in his Humanity, Divine Truth to Divine Good, or Divine Wisdom to Divine Love, and so returned into his Divinity in which he was from eternity, together with, and in, his Glorified Humanity; whence he forever keeps the infernal powers in subjection to himself: And that all who believe in him, with the understanding, from the heart, and live accordingly, will be saved.

“3. That the Sacred Scripture, or Word of GOD, is Divine Truth itself; containing a Spiritual Sense heretofore unknown, whence it is divinely inspired, and holy in every syllable; as well as a Literal Sense, which is the basis of its Spiritual Sense, and in which Divine Truth is in its fulness, its sanctity, and its power; thus that it is accommodated to the apprehension both of angels and men: That the spiritual and natural senses are united, by correspondences, like soul and body, every natural expression and image answering to, and including, a spiritual and divine idea: And thus that the Word is the medium of communication with heaven, and of conjunction with the Lord.

“4. That the government of the Lord’s Divine Love and Wisdom is the Divine Providence; which is universal, exercised according to certain fixed laws of Order, and extending to the minutest particulars of the life of all men, both of the good and of the evil: That in all its operations it has respect to what is infinite and eternal, and makes no account of things transitory, but as they are subservient to eternal ends; thus that it mainly consists, with man, in the connection of things temporal with things eternal; for that the continual aim of the Lord, by his Divine Providence, is to join man to himself and himself to man, that he may be able to give him the felicities of eternal life: And that the laws of permission are also laws of the Divine Providence; since evil cannot be prevented without destroying the nature of man as an accountable agent; and because, also, it cannot be removed unless it be known, and cannot be known unless it appear. Thus that no evil is permitted but to prevent a greater; and all is overruled, by the Lord’s Divine Providence, for the greatest possible good.

“5. That man is not life, but is only a recipient of life from the Lord, who, as he is Love Itself and Wisdom Itself, is also Life Itself; which life is communicated by influx to all in the spiritual world, whether belonging to heaven or to hell, and to all in the natural world; but is received differently by every one, according to his quality and consequent state of reception.

“6. That man, during his abode in the world, is, as to his spirit, in the midst between heaven and hell, acted upon by influences from both, and thus is kept in a state of spiritual equilibrium between good and evil; in consequence of which he enjoys free will, or freedom of choice, in spiritual things as well as in natural, and possesses the capacity of either turning himself to the Lord and his kingdom, or turning himself away from the Lord, and connecting himself with the kingdom of darkness: And that, unless man had such freedom of choice, the Word would be of no use, the church would be a mere name, man would possess nothing by virtue of which he could be conjoined to the Lord, and the cause of evil would be chargeable on GOD himself.

“7. That man at this day is born into evil of all kinds, or with tendencies towards it: That, therefore, in order to his entering the kingdom of heaven, he must be regenerated, or created anew; which great work is effected in a progressive manner, by the Lord alone, by charity and faith as mediums, during man’s coöperation: That, as all men are redeemed, all are capable of being regenerated, and, consequently saved, every one according to his state: And that the regenerate man is in communion with the angels of heaven, and the unregenerate with the spirits of hell: But that no one is condemned for hereditary evil, any further than as he makes it his own by actual life; whence all who die in infancy are saved, special means being provided by the Lord in the other life for that purpose.

“8. That Repentance is the first beginning of the Church in man; and that it consists in a man’s examining himself, both in regard to his deeds and his intentions, in knowing and acknowledging his sins, confessing them before the Lord, supplicating him for aid, and beginning a new life: That, to this end, all evils, whether of affection, of thought, or of life, are to be abhorred and shunned as sins against GOD, and because they proceed from infernal spirits, who in the aggregate are called the Devil and Satan; and that good affections, good thoughts, and good actions, are to be cherished and performed, because they are of GOD and from GOD: That these things are to be done by man as of himself; nevertheless, under the acknowledgment and belief, that it is from the Lord, operating in him and by him: That so far as man shuns evils as sins, so far they are removed, remitted, or forgiven; so far also he does good, not from himself, but from the Lord; and in the same degree he loves truth, has faith, and is a spiritual man: And that the Decalogue teaches what evils are sins.

“9. That Charity, Faith, and Good Works, are unitedly necessary to man’s salvation; since charity, without faith, is not spiritual, but natural; and faith, without charity, is not living, but dead; and both charity and faith, without good works, are merely mental and perishable things, because without use or fixedness: And that nothing of faith, of charity, or of good works, is of man; but that all is of the Lord, and all the merit is his alone.