ceeds to introduce, and concisely to explain, the objections arising from the apparent separateness of the Father and the Son. He thus anticipates the objections of his opponent, and intimates the principles which must be controverted if the doctrine stated is to be overcome. Throughout the discussion of this subject, also, as indeed throughout the entire controversy, a marked prominence is given to the great doctrine of the Divine Humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is well and correctly said by the author-"We may safely assert that THE great difference between the new and the old systems of Theology consists in this, that the new system believes that the Humanity of Jesus is divine, as being that 'in which all the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily;' but the other believes, as C. B. affirms, that the Humanity of Christ forms no part of Divinity.""

This great subject the author proceeds to open and elucidate in the following striking and forcible manner :

"Let us, then, in all candour and Christian love, consider this very important point of difference between the two systems. And first, let me advert to the Conception of Jesus. We find it expressly declared that he had no human father, (Matt. i. 18, 25; Luke i. 35.) but that the essential Divinity itself, or Jehovah, was his Father. A right idea of this is the root of Christianity. Thus we read that GOD was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,' &c. (2 Cor. v. 19.) • GOD was manifest in the flesh,' &c. (1 Tim. iii, 16.) The Word, which was with God and which was God, became flesh,' &c. (John i. 1, 14.) In these passages it is expressly declared that God was in Christ, or manifest in the flesh.' But by the term God, or Theos, is always meant not a part of God, or an influence from God, but God himself. God cannot be divided. By regeneration God dwells in man by his Spirit; but in him who received the Spirit of God without measure,' (John iii. 34.) that is, infinitely, the whole fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily.' (Col. ii. 9.)

་

Here, then, is an infinite distinction between Jesus and all others. Having no human father, as every mere man born into the world has, he was, as to his SOUL, infinitely to be distinguished from all other men. In himself being in the Form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God;' (Phil. ii. 6.) an expression which, your intelligent readers well know, expresses the fullest claim of identity with God.

"God, therefore, according to the Apostle, has a Form; not a metaphysical abstraction, which exists only in the imagination, but a Divine Substantial Form, not material, but infinitely exalted above the laws of matter, space, and time. Now, what is this Form of God," in which Christ is expressly declared to be, but his Glorious Body,' (Phil. iii. 21.) in which he hath ascended far above all heavens that he may fill all things'? What but a Glorious Body,' or a Divine Humanity, can ascend far above all heavens,' and dwell in the light

which no man can approach unto,' and exercise all power in heaven and on earth'? (Matt. xxviii. 18.) For he,' as the Apostle says, 'upholdeth all things by the word of his power, and it is by him that all things consist.' pp. 15, 16.

The constant reference to this subject leads to great variety of statement respecting it; and it is not probable that so profound and (using the word in its Scriptural sense) so mysterious a subject will be seen by all New Church minds in the same light in which it is viewed by the author. On this subject, if on any, we ought to look for forbearance in our judgments of one another. We cannot doubt the sincerity of all our brethren in their endeavours to obtain the best conceptions they are able respecting it; and after witnessing a diversity of opinions among the first minds of the church, it would ill become any one to dogmatize.

The great bulwark of the popular system of doctrine, is the doctrine of Atonement. In the defence of this, the popular advocate entertains his strongest assurance of success. Accustomed to devote his most active thoughts and diligent inquiries to the question, he easily arrives at a self-confident persuasion of the impregnability of his position; and on this occasion, this self-confidence was very manifestly displayed. "Let A. V." (the initials of Amator Veritatis, under which Mr. Smithson wrote) "speak out on the Atonement, and I promise to lay bare the errors of his system." Such were the vain-glorious words with which C. B., the opponent of the New Church, closed his sixth letter; and rarely indeed has a self-confident anticipation of triumph been doomed to a more marked defeat. The reply to this vain boasting was a clear and logical statement of the true doctrine, expressed for the most part so forcibly in the words of Scripture itself, that like a strongly fortified position, no pregnable part was offered to the assailant. And seldom has a feebler assault been attempted. The reply manifested throughout the conscious feebleness of the assailant. In the following paragraph he at once admits the validity of the New Church position, and undermines his own :

"The word (atonement) occurs but once in our version of the New Testament, but the word katallage, for which it stands, is found in Rom. v. 11, xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19. The verb of this noun occurs six times in the New Testament. In every case, perhaps, the words reconcile and reconciliation would express the idea of the original. It must not be forgotten, however, that several questions may be asked on this point. Who is to be reconciled? For many years I have been persuaded that man, and not God, needed to be reconciled. The Author of salvation, in His infinite love, devised a method of reconciling man to Himself. Herein I agree with my opponent, and he will find, that however true the opposite notion was in the days of Swedenborg, it is

far less prevalent now. This reconciliation was effected by the death of

Christ.'

It is thus admitted, and the fact is readily conceded, that the best minds of Christendom are fast departing from the gross conception of the Divine character which a century ago was gloried in as a most essential feature in the Atonement. But these departures are a tacit acknowledgment of the untenableness of the popular doctrine, and an admission of the superior light and beauty of the New Church, since their only logical consistency is in its system of doctrine.

With his defence of the doctrine of the Atonement ended the labours of C. B., foreign travel calling him away from the scene of controversy. A few letters progress without any assailant. In these the author introduces and places in the strong and clear light of the New Jerusalem, the doctrines of satisfaction and substitution in the Atonement, of Justification, of the Cross of Christ, of Repentance, and of Death and Resurrection. In the discussion of these subjects, terms are introduced and illustrated which have attained a technical significance in the popular theological teaching; and which, because of the mistaken ideas attached to them, are seldom used by New Church writers. These are here placed in their correct light, and are seen to yield far greater support to true doctrine than to orthodox theology. Of the propriety of thus rectifying the mistaken conceptions connected with such terms, we are well satisfied. Most of them are of Scriptural origin, and when rightly understood, yield a most expressive meaning. Besides which, the New Church is not new in the sense of despising and rejecting, because of their perversion and abuse, all that is good and true in the popular systems of theology; but is as an householder that bringeth out of his treasures things new and old. The perversions of popular teaching are to be corrected, and the noble words of prophets and apostles, so long consecrated to the service of religion, restored to their true significance, again employed in the service of the true church of God. As an example of the able manner in which the author deals with this part of his subject, we select his remarks on the satisfaction of Christ::

"The only points of any importance in my opponent's reply which require consideration are the terms satisfaction and substitution, as involved in his idea of the Atonement. Now, as to satisfaction, this is fully involved in the idea of reconciliation, which, as C. B. admits, is the proper meaning of the word atonement. For when two parties who have been at enmity, have become reconciled by putting away the ground and causes of the enmity, there is then the most ample satisfaction experienced by both, and they mutually love one another, and

manifest their satisfaction by their joy and gladness. But this, I am aware, is not my opponent's idea of satisfaction in respect to the Atonement. He thinks of a satisfaction rendered to the supposed vindictive justice of God, by the sufferings and death of an innocent victim. But this idea has neither Scripture nor reason to rest upon; and, therefore, is utterly groundless.

"Thus, when the Prodigal in the parable which describes the conversion of the sinner, and his reconciliation with God, resolved to return to his Father's house, the only condition was that of deep humiliation, and of sincere repentance. The Father seeing this, ran to meet him and fell upon his neck and kissed him.' Here no vicarious substitute' was required, at the sight of whose sufferings and blood the Father's wrath was appeased, and his 'vindictive justice' satisfied; but when the Prodigal, by repentance, put away, through God's grace and power, the evil and enmity which separated him from his Father, reconciliation ensued, and perfect satisfaction was the result. This satisfaction was denoted by the rejoicing, the feasting, music, and dancing,' which followed. Now, no one can deny that this Parable is truly Evangelical, and that it truly describes the manner in which the sinner is converted to God, and the consequent reconciliation and satisfaction which are the result."

It is not possible, in the narrow compass of a short letter, to enter into a very full discussion of the several subjects discussed. As much is said as could be introduced into the space allowed. The reader, however, who is interested in the question, will often feel a desire for an ampler discussion than could be here provided for him. The same circumstance necessarily limits the respected author in his choice of materials. Thus, in his treatment of the doctrine of the Resurrection, the passages generally supposed to teach the popular doctrine, for want of space are not cited, but a direction given to a Tract in which they are expounded. The doctrine is, nevertheless, clearly stated and sustained by direct Scriptural authority, and its consolatory character finely contrasted with the gloom of the popular doctrine. Its illustration by natural analogies is also very felicitous. The following paragraphs contain a part of the author's statement :

"This idea of man's immediate resurrection from the dead in the world of spirits is most rational and most consoling, and, at the same time, has in its favour the common unsophisticated consent of all, when not allowing their thoughts to be governed by an erroneous doctrine. For what is more rational than the idea that man, who is immortal, and created to live in the spiritual world for ever, should, immediately on the extinction of his bodily life, enter upon his spiritual existence? On the contrary, what is more irrational than to suppose that man, created to live for ever, should, at death, be plunged, as Dr. Whately, the Archbishop of Dublin, teaches in his sermons on 'Death and the Resurrection,' into an unconscious sleep, for, it may be, thou

sands and thousands of years, until the morning of the supposed general resurrection? or that the soul should be in some unknown region of the universe, enjoying no perfect existence until it is again re-united with its material tenement?

"The former idea is not only a plain deduction of Scripture, but it is confirmed by numerous analogies in creation, which, as 'visible things,' represent to us the invisible things' of God's kingdom. (Rom. i. 20.) The corn of wheat' no sooner dies in the ground, than it rises again; (John xii. 24.) the caterpillar no sooner dies as to its larva state, than it rises in its butterfly state, and enjoys a very superior existence, analogous to man's earthly state, his death, and his resurrection; and if he be regenerate, to his heavenly state also. The death, so to speak, of the day is its midnight, and the death of the year is its midwinter; but no sooner does this death arrive than a new day and a new year commence. Whereas, the latter idea of an unconscious sleep has no analogies in nature to confirm and illustrate it. The Apostle clearly teaches this same idea which the doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem maintains, when he says-'We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle [the earthly body] were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands [the spiritual body], eternal in the heavens,' &c. (2 Cor. v. 1, 2.) Besides, the Apostle saysFor me to die is gain.' (Phil. i. 21.) What gain would there be in an unconscious sleep? But there is every gain in the idea of the resurrection which the doctrine of the New Church teaches." pp. 129, 130.

A prominent feature of these Letters, and one which cannot fail to commend them to the warm approbation of the true members of the church, is their eminently practical character. The author clearly sees and forcibly maintains that the church is not formed by doctrine merely, but by life; and that no amount, therefore, of Scriptural intelligence can compensate for a want of active obedience to the Lord's precepts. And while perpetually insisting on this duty as the foundation of the church in man, and the only means of his preparation for heaven, he is as careful to maintain the ground of Christian faith as the only solid foundation on which it can be built. The Lord in His Humanity is thus constantly kept before the eye of the reader, and he is constrained to see and feel the eminently practical and truly evangelical character of New Church teaching. And this we think should ever be the case. It is in vain to seek to advance the New Church on any other ground. It is its purifying faith, embodying a living charity in active obedience and love, that forms its distinguishing excellence, and adapts its teaching to the spiritual wants and moral necessities of the times.

We have little to say of the second defender of the citadel of orthodoxy. After a feeble defence he confined himself to a series of questions, deemed by him, we presume, unanswerable. The answers to these inquiries, discussing various questions in Scriptural pneumatology,