The Book of Religions / Comprising the Views, Creeds, Sentiments, or Opinions, of All the Principal Religious Sects in the World, Particularly of All Christian Denominations in Europe and America, to Which are Added Church and Missionary Statistics, Together With Biographical Sketches

by John Hayward

“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, [pg 147] 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 [pg 148] 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 [pg 149] 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 [pg 150] 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 [pg 151] 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.