justified before God (for through faith only doth this occur), but for the sake of civil order, and because they know that such obedience is well-pleasing and agreeable to God, and a good example and pattern for improvement to others, in order that they may believe in the gospel."

Dr. Mohler also states the doctrinal differences between the two parties in respect to the sacraments of Baptism and the Holy Supper. But whatever may be the difference, the Protestants unite the bread and the wine, and give both to the people; the Catholics separate them, and only give one kind to the people; and nothing can atone for this most abominable act of profanation, by which separation, if they had but spiritual discernment to see the fact, they represent the total disjunction of goodness from truth,—of faith from charity, and consequently the total destruction of all vital religion; and in a still higher sense, by that most profane act, they represent the divulsion of the Lord's flesh—the bread, from His divine blood-the wine, and not only "crucify Him afresh," but murder every thing spiritual and internal in the Church.

Dr. Mæhler next proceeds to explain the "differences in respect to the doctrine on the Church;" and here we become sensible of the direful subtleties of mere reasoning, although the Romish Church dreads and denounces no enemy so much as what is called rationalism. Reason is doubtless given to man with the primary end, that he may receive the light of revelation or heavenly wisdom; but this cannot possibly be received unless we employ our reason affirmatively and humbly receive, with rational discernment, the truths of revelation. Hence the Lord says, "Whoso readeth let him understand ;" and again, "When the word is not understood, the wicked one cometh, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart." By which the Lord plainly teaches, that we must employ our rational mind in the cause of revealed truth, and endeavour to understand as much of it as we can. But when reason is employed negatively in respect to revelation, it then rushes into every absurdity, and places itself presumptuously upon the throne of God, and in the pride of its own self-derived intelligence, either denies or perverts every revealed truth. Now, in the endeavour to establish the authority of the Romish Church, the advocate of papal supremacy has employed the most subtle reasonings, and rendered himself guilty of that which he most denounces in his opponents,―the most revolting rationalism; for can human reason be more horribly perverted than when it is employed as Dr. Mohler employs it, to place the authority of the Church above the Word, and even above the Lord Himself? This Dr. M. has done, as is evident from the following words:

"The authority of the Church is the medium of all, which in the Christian

religion resteth on authority, and is authority, that is to say, the Christian religion itself; so that Christ himself is only in so far an authority as the Church is an authority."-(Vol. II. p. 17.)

However these words may sound to the ears of a Roman Catholic, to the mind of a Newchurchman they mournfully toll the death-knell of every thing truly Christian in the Romish persuasion.

66

In another paper we shall take into consideration what Dr. Mohler has stated in respect to the Symbolism" of the New Church. What has been here shewn and said may probably serve to elucidate and corroborate certain points often adverted to in the New Church writings. The theology of the New Church will have nothing to lose, but every thing to gain, by being contrasted with the theology of the old.*

ON THE ORIGIN OF EVIL, AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS DEPENDENT THEREON.

(Continued from page 107.)

OUR correspondent's strictures on the article on Election, as connected with the supposed vicarious sacrifice of the cross, inserted in page 9 of our number for January, altogether turn, as he himself admits eventually, on the question first mooted by him concerning the Origin of evil; and we hope that we may state without offence, that we have no doubt, that if he could see this subject in the same light that we see it, he would take a very different view of the remarks of * * * from that which he has taken. Those remarks, as we conceive, are clearly borne out by THE EXTRACTS furnished from the Congregational Reviewer himself, although to AN INQUIRER it appears otherwise. So far, indeed, is AN INQUIRER from proving that any injustice has been done to the Congregationalists, that, to our perceptions, he has himself most unquestionably made the FATHER OF MERCIES, the author of evil! and, consequently, of hell and eternal misery! No doubt he will warmly repel this conclusion, as he has done in his paper, and to his indignant denial we can only reply, that his remarks are so at variance with his express declarations, that it is not within possibility for a reasonable mind to give equal credence to both. In paying the least attention to the former, we are necessarily compelled to disregard the latter.

He

* The best work on "Symbolism" connected with the New Church, as explaining the doctrinal differences between its theology, and the peculiar views of the various Protestant sects, is the work entitled "Job Abbott, or, reasons for abandoning the Trinitarian, Arian, and Unitarian Doctrines, and embracing that of the Lord's New Church," &c. This work, by so ably contrasting these differences, is eminently useful, and should be in the hands of every Newchurchman.

says, that God is the author of all good, and of good only, and yet he so describes the Divine acts and proceedings, as to make God unavoidably the sole Author of evil! In proof of this, we shall present some extracts from his paper, and first, where he is defending the Calvinistic views against *** :

"God," says the Calvinist, "has wrought in ME to will and to do of his good pleasure. But this he evidently has not done for ALL. Some are suffered to go their own way; while of others it may be said, he has inclined their hearts to his law; he has created a clean spirit in them."

Again he remarks,—

"The Calvinist says, the purpose of God is to invite all, and potentially to save all, but in addition to this extent of common mercy, he believes that God is yet more merciful, and that he has also a purpose to INDUCE SOME,-not to force them, to accept the invitation, and be actually saved."*

Again,

"God has not inclined all to accept his universal invitation; only some he has induced to come to the feast of salvation; these are elected to receive the gift of saving faith from eternity; others are not prevented from receiving it, they are MERELY not elected to receive it."

All these remarks obviously suppose, that God's common gift of grace is not sufficient for man's salvation; and that his "special" or "sovereign" grace is alone sufficient; consequently, in respect to salvation, the latter only is of value, and the former is of none; and yet in the business of salvation, AN INQUIRER says, "God is no respecter of persons!" He even warmly asserts that the faith of the Congregationalist affirms equally with that of the Swedenborgian, that "ALL men have freewill in spiritual things." Now what sort of free-will must that be, which is restrained by its naturally fallen and fettered condition, from all beneficial exercise to its owner, for want of the only sufficient grace -withheld from him, although given to others? Of what use would it have been for Peter to have said to the lame man, “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk," if his Lord had not given the lame man sufficient strength to do so? Of what use is it to say that all may come-even those who have not special grace, while it is said, at the same time, that those only who have special grace can come ? Is not this mere paltering with language? mere theological

* Can it be possible that AN INQUIRER has overlooked the inversion of ideas in this statement? Is it "more merciful" to induce a part to accept salvation, than to purpose, with full ability to accomplish that purpose, (as AN INQUIRER states,) to save all? What can he mean by saying that God, with full power to save all, by an irresistible act of grace, is "more merciful" in not saving all, but only a part? What is the difference between irresistibly inducing and forcing?

tergiversation ? Is it not obvious, that the assertion of free-will, in the mouth of a Calvinist, and in the mouth of a New Churchman, is a totally different thing? With the latter, it is a reality, being unaccompanied with any inconsistent neutralizing ideas; but, with the Calvinist, the assertion of free-will is entirely vitiated by accompanying ideas which render it a nonentity and an impossibility, and, consequently, it is a mere pretence! It is perfectly idle, then, for AN INQUIRER to say, that the Congregationalist affirms the same things as a member of the New Church concerning free-will, for, when viewed interiorly, they are totally different,-as different, indeed, as words with ideas, and words without ideas! Thus it is, that the Tripersonalist is very angry with the New Churchman for refusing to credit his declaration, when, after describing the three Persons he believes in, exactly in the same terms as would befit a description of three Gods, he declares, that he nevertheless believes only in One God, and not in three Gods, and that the three Persons are but One God. But why should he be angry with the New Churchman because he cannot believe this declaration? Every one has not the unenviable ability to believe things contradictory to each other, to be equally true.

But let us now present some previous specimens of these neutralizing sentiments contained in the paper of AN INQUIRER, by which he makes his own express declarations of none offect."

"While man stands obedient, it is owing to God's restraining power; when he falls, it must be because his defectible tendency is LEFT uncounteracted by the will or Sovereign Grace of God. To him who falls, God gives all [natural aids] that justice demands (?) and then permits him to fall; but to him who stands, he gives more than justice demands; (?) He supports him with sovereign or special [that is, irresistible] grace. ONE man is permitted to fall, while ANOTHER is upheld [irresistibly, of course,] by grace, or, in other words 'predestinated to life.' Thus all evil is from ourselves when LEFT to ourselves; all good is from God."

"When left to ourselves!" Thanks to the divine love, that can never be! It appears to us, that to mix up such declarations as those just cited with confident assertions, "that God is just to all;" that "he is no respecter of persons ;" and that "all good is from Him, and all evil from man;" is like speaking well of a person in general terms, and then, in the very same breath, attributing evil to him in detail. It is impossible for any just and reasonable mind to attach any value whatever to mere general compliments, so evidently void of meaning, if not of sincerity. We would seriously put it to AN INQUIRER whether the persons "left to themselves" by not receiving an inclination to accept God's call,—who receive less than special grace, or who receive only common mercy," or who are permitted to fall," &c., could, without

66

uttering a positive falsehood, declare, that God is INFINITELY GOOD to them? Or will AN INQUIRER affirm it himself? And if, be it remembered, there be ONLY ONE human soul to whom God does not extend ALL the mercy (let the word mercy be rightly defined,) that he can extend to any, then God is not infinitely good at all; and, consequently, since if there be a God, he must be infinitely good, if there be none infinitely good, there is NO GOD. Such, in our judgment, is the necessary consequence of our correspondent's own words. They tend not merely to Hyper-Calvinism, but if fairly, freely, and fully carried out, their final destination is nothing short of Atheism! But the language used by AN INQUIRER is not only opposed to the fundamental truth, that God is infinitely good, it is utterly inconsistent with itself. What can be more inconsistent than the attempted distinction between God's "common mercy," and his mercy which is greater than his common mercy ? If his " common mercy "be less than infinite, it is a finite principle, which can have no place in God, for in Him all is infinite; and if God's common mercy" be infinite, what is that mercy which is more than infinite? We have been accustomed to think that Pharaoh's treatment of the Israelites, in requiring them to make bricks without straw (although indispensable to the performance of their task) was very unjust, but in respect to the principle involved, in what does the case of those not predestinated to life, and who are therefore "left to themselves," but nevertheless are held to be faulty, because of the necessary consequences resulting from their not being supplied with special grace (as indispensable to them as the straw was to the poor Israelitish bondmen)—in what, we ask, does the case of the non-predestinated to life differ, in point of injustice, from the case of the oppressed Israelites ? Does not the Governor of the universe, (according to our correspondent) virtually say to those who are "left to themselves," "I know you cannot but sin if I withhold my and thus leave you to youselves, but although I intend to withhold it, I expect you to obey as well without it, as with it; and if you disappoint my reasonable (?) expectations, perdition shall be your portion." Why! -Pharoah's merciless conduct was nothing to this! it was as much less merciless than the conduct attributed to God, by how much the duration of the bondage in Egypt was less than the duration of eternal woe! Our correspondent states himself to be, and no doubt he intended to be, a strict adherent to the rules of logic, but where was his advertence to these rules when he penned the remarkably contradictory sentence above cited,—(1) “ All evil is from ourselves—WHEN left to ourselves; (2) all good is from God." These two sentences are, to our perceptions,

special grace from you