IN the prospectus of this work, we promised to give to our readers the creed of the New Jerusalem Church, as compared with the creeds of other churches. Our object, in this, was to point out clearly the difference between them, which could best be manifested by contrast. As preliminary, however, to the following article, we shall offer a few remarks.

The Christian world is divided into a vast number of sects, which profess doctrines, not merely different from, but oftentimes in direct opposition to each other, all of which, however, are said to be founded upon the same authority, the Scriptures, or word of God. Now, it must be evident, that, although some particular passages, when taken separately, may seem to favour this or that particular opinion, yet the whole, when taken collectively, must agree; or else the Bible is inconsistent with itself. This latter supposition ought not for a moment to be entertained by any professing Christian; and we shall not, therefore, suffer a doubt upon that point to influence our investigation.

When sects were first established, they arose from a difference of opinion, as to the object of worship, the means of salvation, or some other tenet of faith and life, which appeared to their founders to result from a true construction of the Scriptures. Creeds were therefore instituted, and the test of proselytism was an ac-. knowledgment that the doctrines embraced were the doctrines of the Word. In process of time, however, when men became to

be less solicitous of the welfare of their immortal souls, and more prone to rest in the mere outward observance of religious forms, the creeds of their respective churches were, in a degree, lost sight of, and external bonds, such as frequenting the same place of worship, constituted the chief characteristic of their sectarian difference. Hence it has happened, that, in many societies of Christians, the doctrines of their particular church are unknown to most of the laity, and, in some instances, a part only of the articles of faith is professedly believed in. The consequence of this lamentable falling off, has been, that some congregations, without changing their denomination, have departed from the canonical tenets of their church; and we not unfrequently hear of persons, who call themselves by the same name, differing from each other, upon points the most important. Doctrines, in fine, are studied and understood by comparatively few individuals; and theological knowledge is consequently of a very limited

extent.

If, therefore, it be intended to compare the doctrines of any sect of the old church with those of the new, we are not to ask individuals the particular nature of their belief. We are bound to resort to the tenets laid down in books, by writers held to be orthodox, as those upon which the church was founded, and upon which it is supposed still to rest. If, for example, we wish to ascertain the creed of the Protestant Episcopal Church, we must look to the Thirty-nine Articles of its faith; if that of the Presbyterian Church, we can find it in the Confession of Faith, and the Catechisms. If persons, professing themselves to be attached to a particular church, do not, in reality, believe the doctrines of that church, the fault is theirs, if they do not renounce their allegiance, and associate themselves with those who acknowledge a faith similar to their own.

One of the chief arguments against the examination of any new system of religion, is, that our forefathers were as wise as their descendants, and what they maintained, we will not depart from. Little do these advocates of the infallibility of their ancestors, reflect upon the absurdity into which this doctrine must lead them. What would have been our present situation, had our forefathers themselves acted upon this principle? How could the reformation ever have been accomplished, had not some enlightened and independent men, disregardful of the contempt and scoffs of

their neighbours, raised their voices, and exerted their talents, in opposition to the Catholic dominion ?-Nay, to carry the investigation farther back, should we not, at this day, all have been Jews or heathens, had it not been for the bold and resolute conduct of the primitive Christians, who, in defiance of threats, of persecution, and of suffering, abandoned the religious opinions of their forefathers, and with them their synagogues and their idols? This reasoning is sufficient to show the imbecility and irrationality of that species of argument, which would lead a man to prejudge a system, without taking the pains of examining it, and to condemn it, merely because it was new.

We have known many persons assume the character of critics, and revile the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, who had never read a volume of his works, and it is a truth, that most of the calumny, which has been heaped upon this illuminated seer, has been propagated by those who have never examined into his system.

The members of the New Church declare to their fellow Christians, and to the world, that in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, a new dispensation of truth is made to mankind. This they do not merely think, as matter of opinion-they feel it, they know it, and so may all others, who, in a state of serious inquiry, and full purpose of mind to apply their knowledge to the regulation of their lives, will study, without prejudice, the same volumes. But this is a new system of religion, and therefore cannot be true! What! is the Christian world so fully satisfied with its present doctrines, as not to be willing to listen to others? Are they so clear and satisfactory, as to create no doubts upon the mind? or are many of them so difficult to be understood, that the only way in which they can be believed in, is to banish them altogether from the province of the rational faculty?

It shall be the constant endeavour of the editors of this work, to enforce, upon all occasions, the doctrines of the New Church. They know them to be the doctrines of the Sacred Scriptures, to which the Christian world must sooner or later subscribe; and, although their reception must, of necessity, from the nature of the prejudices which they will have to encounter, be slow and almost imperceptible, it will most certainly be sure.

The following Contrast was drawn by a member of the New Church, residing in the interior of this state, and was published, a few years since, at his individual expense.

ED.

NEW JERUSALEM CHURCH.

Of God and the Trinity. THERE is but one God, in essence and in person one; in whom there is a Divine Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is that God.

Of God and the Trinity. IN unity of the Godhead there be three persons of one substance, power and eternity: -God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding;-the-This Trinity may be comparSon is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and Son.

[Confession of Faith,

chap, ii, sect. S.]

There be three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory, although distinguished by their personal properties.

[Larger Catechism,
question 9.]

ed to the soul, body and operation in every individual man. The Father is the Divine esse, the all-begetting Divinity,-answering to the soul of man :the Son is the Humanity of Jesus Christ made Divine and united to the Father, or in other words, the Divine Humanity,-answering to the body of man :-and the Holy Spirit is the Divine proceeding energy from the Father, through or out of the Son, answering to the operations of the soul and body of man together. Therefore, the Lord, as Father, is the first cause and creator of all things from eternity; as Son, the redeemer in time; and, as the Holy Ghost, the regenerator to eternity.

Of Predestination and Provi- Of Predestination and Provi

dence.

1. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory;

dence.

1. God, from the nature of his Divine Love, willeth the sal