As to the practical tendency of E.S.'s writings, Dr. Mohler says:"The doctrinal system of the Swedish prophet has by no means, as we should be disposed to believe from many of his speculations, a mainly theosophistic tendency, but, on the contrary, an eminently practical one. It sprung out of an opposition to the Protestant principle of justification, and the ulterior doctrines therewith connected; for, Swedenborg also held this whole body of Lutheran and Calvanistic tenets, to be subversive of morality, and extremely pernicious to practical Christianity. From this polemical spirit, all the virtues and the defects of this sectary are to be deduced."

Dr. M., from this and from other statements, would apparently make his readers suppose, that Swedenborg stands more in direct opposition to the Protestants than to the Roman Catholics, and that consequently so far as he is hostile to the former, he is a welcome polemic to the latter. The fact however is, that Swedenborg's theology is equally opposed to that of both parties; and if, on every occasion, he employs his utmost energy to shew up the desolating effects of the dogma of "justification of faith only;" he, with no less zeal and power, shews, that the Romish Catholicism, by exalting the authority of the Church, that is, the papal authority, above that of the Word, yea of the Lord himself,* has arrogated to itself divine power, banished the Lord from the Church, and has consequently changed Christianity into papism, which is a compound of externalities derived from judaism and paganism, calculated to soothe and fascinate the senses with solemn excitement and external pomp of worship, but to lay asleep in the lap of sensualism, ignorance, and bigotry, all the rational and spiritual powers of the mind.

"Evident, as it now is," says Dr. M., "that Swedenborg's reforming zeal was particularly directed against the errors in the Protestant doctrine of Justification; yet, his attempts to undermine the same, were conducted with a destructive ignorance; for he undermined withal the very foundations of Christianity. Looking for the connexion, wherein the notion of faith, as prevalent among his former fellowreligionists, stood with other dogmas, he fell into the error, that the doctrine of the Trinity was the basis of the former opinion, and hence, he thought it incumbent upon him to subvert it. Secondly, he observes (and in this instance with perfect justice), that the Lutheran and Calvanistic doctrine of original sin, forms the ground-work of the Protestant theory of Justification. He rejected, accordingly, the article of the fall of man in Adam; and human freedom, which the Reformers had denied, he exalted to the highest pitch. Lastly, he assailed the doctrine of the vicarious death of Christ, in order to cut off the last link, which could connect the notion of Justification, by faith alone, with any other dogma."

In this extract the principal points are selected, which Dr. M. exhibits as forming what he considers to be the main errors of New Church theology. These errors, it is stated, are the consequence of rejecting

* See this declared by Dr. Mohler himself in our last paper, p. 140. N.S. NO. 53.-VOL. V.

A a

the Athanasian dogma of three Persons in the Trinity. As the proper idea of God is the basis of all true theology, this idea being as it were the sun of the theological systems from which all other doctrines derive their light, their coherence, and their consistency, it follows, that when the tritheistic idea inculcated by the doctrine of three Persons in the Trinity is removed, all the dogmas dependent on that idea fall to the ground. Hence the doctrines of the incarnation, redemption, atonement, justification, are very differently exhibited in the theology of the New Church, to the light, or rather the darkness in which they are presented in that of old. We say darkness, because these doctrines are universally acknowledged in the prevailing systems of theology to be mysterious, and transcending the comprehension of the human mind, and consequently, so far as its perceptions go, they are enveloped in darkness. But not so in the theology of the New Church. To the sincere mem

bers of the New Jerusalem "it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven."

The "destructive ignorance" with which Dr. M. charges Swedenborg, is a mere assertion unaccompanied by any proof. Whereas all documents relating to the Church history of the first two centuries prove the assertion of E.S., "that in the primitive or apostolic Church, the doctrine of three Persons in the Trinity was unknown." To support however this assertion of "destructive ignorance," Dr. M. alleges, that "had Swedenborg been in the least acquainted with ecclesiastical and dogmatic history, he would have found among the heretics of the first ages-the Sabellians, the most accurate resemblance to his own errors. Now if Dr. Mohler had studied the symbolism of the New Church more accurately, he would have seen the great difference existing between the doctrine of the Trinity proposed and demonstrated from Scripture by Swedenborg, and that maintained in the early ages by Sabellius and Praxeus.* One would suppose that the imense body of Scripture proof, which Swedenborg adduces to confirm every doctrine he explains, would be a recommendation, rather than not; but with Dr. M. this appears to be no recommendation

"Of what is called Scriptural proof," says he, "Swedenborg has not the slightest notion. It is a mere accident, if in support of any one, even of his truest propositions, he assigns satisfactory exegetical grounds. He usually heaps passages upon passages, without much troubling himself about usage of speech, the context, parallel passages, or in general, the strict application of hermeneutic rules, although with these, he was not unacquainted."

This tirade against Swedenborg's mode of copiously adducing Scripture, savours only of ill-disguised chagrin, that E.S. could so abundantly * See Noble's Appeal, &c., Appendix, No. II. where this difference is pointed out.

confirm every doctrine he advanced by passages from the Word of God. A papal bull has more weight with Dr. Mohler than a hundred passages from Scripture, and for this reason assigned by Dr. M. himself, because the Lord and His Word are only so far an authority as the CHURCH (alias the synodal and papal edicts) is an authority. Whereas with Swedenborg, Papal bulls, compared with the authority of the Word, are mere bubbles.*

Swedenborg's doctrine of the Fall next engages the attention of Dr. M., who states "that the fall of man in Adam is denied by Swedenborg, and that his theory on this subject is full of contradictions." This "denial" and these "contradictions," however, are only misapprehensions of Dr. M., who, had he more carefully and attentively read what E. S. has written upon this important subject, would, we think, have come to other conclusions. A hurried and transient glance at a subject, such as that which Dr. M. has obviously given to the system of theology developed by Swedenborg, is not calculated, even to the most practised and accomplished minds, to convey an accurate impression. Dr. M. points out the specific difference existing between the Protestant doctrine of the Fall, and that of the Romish Church. The former declares "that after the fall in Adam, the human race, as to spiritual things, were totally blind and impotent,-that they were merely passive, mere stocks and stones, &c., and that they consequently have no free-will in spiritual things; whereas the Roman Catholic teaches that after the fall in Adam, mankind had still "a remnant of grace left from God,—a religious sense, by which they can see and take hold of eternal things." Hence the Catholic maintains, in opposition to the Protestant of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, the free-will of man in spiritual things, which was not lost by the fall. Now Swedenborg by no means denies that Adam, by whom, as a collective name, is meant the men of the most ancient Church, fell, nor that the human race was greatly affected by the fall, but he denies that mankind are guilty, or the subjects of sin on account of Adam's transgression. For the doctrine of Original Sin, as commonly maintained, supposes, that spiritual death and damnation have been entailed upon mankind as a consequence of Adam's fall. But this supposition stands in direct opposition to the divine law, which says: "The father shall not be put to death for the son, neither shall the son be put to death for the father; every one shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deut. xxiv. 16.) But although sin and guilt are not entailed upon mankind through Adam's fall, yet the posterity have inherited, as a consequence, tendencies to

* The term bulla, from which the papal term bull is derived, signifies a bubble.

evil, which in succeeding generations became so powerful and accumulated, as to give rise to the divine assertion: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." This evil, however, or these tendencies to evil, which we inherit from our parents and progenitors, are not our sin or guilt in the sight of an all-wise and allmerciful God, but our infirmities, our propensities to evil, which through the process of regeneration, are subdued within us. In order to counteract these evil propensities, we derive from the Lord what Swedenborg calls "remains," represented by the remnant of Judah, of Israel, of Jacob, &c., so often mentioned in Scripture. These remnants, or "remains,” are all states of innocence, love, gentleness, &c., which from our earliest infancy we receive by influx from the Lord, and which, in due time, serve as the great instrumental means by which our hereditary evils are subdued and overcome. As, therefore, on the one hand we derive from our earthly parents and progenitors hereditary propensities to evil, so, on the other, we receive from the Lord, our divine Parent, a heritage of what is true and good to counteract our fallen inheritance. Swedenborg has clearly pointed out the distinction between hereditary evil and actual sin, and, more than any other writer in theology, has shewn the nature of saving grace, and the relation of man's free-will to its divine operation. In this, as on every other subject of theology in the New Church, the Lord has said, "let there be light, and there is light." But in the theology of the Old Church there is on this, as on every other point, nothing but chaotic confusion and darkness. ascribe the universal effects of sinful depravity to the single act of Adam's transgression, is as absurd as it is to ascribe the existence of all noxious plants to the seed of the nettle only, and as preposterous as to declare the wolf to be the father of all ferocious beasts. It seems to be a new idea to Dr. Mohler, that a man inherits his peculiar dispositions to evil from his parents and ancestors, and because Swedenborg does not derive all the innate tendencies to evil which now exist in mankind, immediately from the fall of Adam, nothing but obscurities and inconsistencies appear. Hence Dr. M. says:

To

"In Romans v. 12-14, Adam is very clearly designated as he, by whose fall, the fall of all others has been determined; and he is expressly characterized as one person (di evos avрwπov). From whatever side, therefore, we contemplate Swedenborg's doctrine (on the Fall), it appears full of obscurities and inconsistencies."

The passage to which Dr. M. alludes reads thus: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Here the apostle employs the term sin (auapria) in the sense of hereditary evil, and not

of actual sin, or guilt, as is evident from the following chapter, ver. 10: "For in that Christ died, he died unto sin (auapria) once," &c. Here, as in 2 Cor. v. 21, sin is predicated of Jesus Christ in the sense of hereditary infirmity from the mother, and by no means in the sense of actual sin, which, also, the apostle plainly asserts. And on account of this hereditary evil which all mankind have inherited from their parents and progenitors, even from the time of Adam, the liability to spiritual death hath passed upon all men, not, however, on account of Adam's transgression, but because, as the apostle expressly states, "all have sinned." The term Adam is also employed by the apostle as a type of fallen human nature, in which, if a man remains, and is not regenerated, he must inevitably die. We are regenerated by the "quickening spirit of the second Adam," who is the Lord in His glorified Human Nature, from whom come all quickening and saving influences; hence "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. xv. 22.) Instead, therefore, of the Scriptural opposition between the first and the second Adam being, as Dr. M. 66 says, devoid of sense in the system of Swedenborg," we can only discover sense, light, and harmony in every part. But none are so blind as those who will not see. To follow Dr. M. critically throughout the whole of his statements, would require the space of a small volume. Suffice it to say, that the greater part of his misstatements and erroneous deductions have been refuted over and over again. "Swedenborg," he says, "rejects the atonement, which is the mighty dogma that has overcome the world." It is true that E.S. rejects the vicarious sacrifice and the atonement, as commonly understood, but Dr. M. omits to state the New Church doctrine on this important subject, and consequently leaves his readers to suppose that Swedenborg rejects the doctrine of the atonement altogether. This, however, is extremely unjust in an author, who professes to write a work on "Symbolism." Swedenborg is, nevertheless, to Dr. M. a very extraordinary phenomenon in history; he knows not how to contemplate his position. The idea of the Christian Church having come to its consummation, and of a New Church having commenced, seems to bewilder Dr. Mohler, and in his bewilderment he says, as though for a time bereaved of his usual rational powers,—

"The work of Christ lasted about three hundred years, (the time during which Christianity existed in its simplicity and in a state worthy of its name) — a short spring-tide, till at last Swedenborg converts all into an eternal spring! Is not this the most evident blasphemy? Swedenborg is really exalted to be the centrepoint of all history, and to hold the place of the true Redeemer; with him, and not with Christ the golden age returns."

This would indeed be blasphemy, but it is only a fantasy existing