in the imagination of the writer, who in his anger against Swedenborg, for having so clearly and powerfully laid open the errors and enormities of the Romish Church, would fain make his readers believe that E.S. was guilty of the blasphemy here imputed to him. Whereas Swedenborg leaves himself entirely out of the phenomena of history, and makes the acknowledgment of the Lord Jesus Christ in his Divine Humanity as the centre-point, from which the history of genuine Christianity must commence, and from which the "Sun of righteousness again arises with healing on his wings," to save and to bless all the nations of the earth.

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

(Concluded from page 147.)

WE are pleased, of course, with our correspondent's testimony to the leading excellencies of the writings of our illustrious author, especially where he says, “With the challenge given to test the plan on which the WORD is written, by the application of a fixed principle of correspondence to every verse of the Letter, I was strongly startled; I am at present engaged in applying the test, and confess that I am amazed at the extent to which I find it applicable." After giving this testimony, our correspondent proceeds to ask,-"Supposing that I am thoroughly convinced of the truth of Swedenborg's claim to be the medium through which the Lord opened the spiritual sense of the Word, and even of the reality of his intercourse with the spiritual world; supposing, further, that notwithstanding all his vast acquired knowledge, his natural genius, and his extraordinary gifts, I FIND that his system, as a system, is not perfect, and therefore not infallible; are there any means by which I shall be able to discriminate between what is the Lord's, and what is his p"-Now, considering the nature of the premises here presented, we must confess our surprise at the question with which they conclude. When an individual finds an author possessed of such immense comparative advantages for forming right conclusions, and avoiding wrong ones, he should be very careful how he admits a further finding; that his author is so defective, that even with his own limited means of judging, he can detect in his doctrines, the "dross (such is AN INQUIRER'S hypothetical proposition) of a false and indefensible philosophy." What should we say of a little child, who, with the advantage of a very wise parent, should complain that he could not place confidence in his judgment? To ourselves, and in our own case, such

contradictory findings as those imagined by AN INQUIRER, would seem not a little inconsistent. Such is our estimate of the great powers which were possessed by Swedenborg, that in all matters of a doubtful kind, we are disposed readily to defer to any proofs offered to us which are prefaced by " Swedenborg says." We do not say that his Writings are so far infallible that no mistake exists in them. We know that there is a mistake of a word, for instance, in quoting a passage of Scripture in his posthumous work, the Apocalypse Explained.* This is enough to invalidate any supposition that his writings, like the Scriptures, contain nothing but what is the Lord's, for the error alluded to must necessarily be his own. Any one who is convinced that Swedenborg was a divinely commissioned messenger to mankind, will not lightly call in question his statements and doctrines, provided he be simple in heart; but if he be self-willed, quick, and confident in his conclusions, and have too great a "leaning to his own understanding," then we are convinced, that no sort of conviction of the divine mission of Swedenborg will be sufficient to prevent the practical adoption of the too hasty conclusion, that all in Swedenborg's writings that agrees with his own prepossessions, is "of the Lord," while all that does not agree with them, is of the messenger himself! From our own observation and experience, we are persuaded, that, in dealing with authors, how high soever their character, every one will follow out the bent of his own character. The candid and the meek will judge candidly and meekly, while the judgment of the disingenuous and the proud will be just the contrary. People are found to act thus in dealing with the Word of God, even while they acknowledge its divine origin, and therefore they will not hesitate to do the same with Swedenborg's interpretations of it. The means by which our correspondent may be enabled to make the discrimination he desires, we believe are only to be found in the promises of divine guidance contained in the Word, and especially, for instance, that contained in the words of David, "The meek [or self-afflicted] will he guide in judgment, and to the meek will he teach his way." (Psa. xxv. 9.)

Our corres

But we must again advert to the subject of Calvinism. pondent is disposed to defend Calvinism against * * * in a manner for which no Calvinist will feel obliged to him. He is disposed to abandon a trinity of Persons, and the vicarious sacrifice, for the New Church doctrine of the Lord, and the at-one-ment he effected between the Divine and Human Natures in Himself. He retains only out of his former faith, the doctrines of Predestination and Election; and so he is willing * See numbers 304 and 375, where, in quoting Hosea ii. 21-23, the word "Israel" is written instead of "Jezreel," as in the original Hebrew.

to become the first Unipersonal Calvinist; and if he remain such, we trust he will be also the last! We are not disposed to wish him "God speed" in this impossible, and, in our opinion, unhallowed combination, so utterly at variance with the fundamental doctrines of the New Church. A New Church Predestination! The bare possibility of such a thing actually strikes us with horror. But the thing is utterly impossible with any candid reader of E.S., who is also a sincere receiver of his testimony. If AN INQUIRER pursue his reading of our illustrious author in the right spirit, we predict that his Calvinistic ideas will gradually lose their hold upon him. He informs us that he possesses Swedenborg's True Christian Religion. Let him turn to n. 798 of that work, and he will there learn the authority on which the believer in the testimony of its author must reject and condemn Calvinism, or the Doctrine of Predestination and Election. To this we beg his attention, and also to the following extracts which shew, to our satisfaction, the impossibility of combining the New Church doctrine of the Divine Nature and Character, with that doctrine of "Predestination to life," which, in fact, might with equal propriety be called "Predestination to death," that is, in respect to all who are said to be "left to themselves!" "Predestination is a birth conceived and brought forth from the faith of the present Church, because it originates in a belief of instantaneous salvation by an immediate act of mercy, and in a belief that man has not the smallest degree of ability or free-will in spiritual things. [This is fully supported by the German formularies.] * * * But what more detestable or more cruel notion could have been devised and entertained of God, than that any part of the human race are predestinated to damnation? For it would be a horrible idea, that the Lord, who is essential love and essential mercy, designed that the bulk of mankind should be born for hell, or that myriads of myriads should be born devoted to destruction, or in other words born to be devils and Satans; and that out of his divine wisdom which is infinite, he should make no provision for those who lead good lives and acknowledge God, whereby they might escape everlasting fire and punishment: whereas the Lord is the Creator and Saviour of all, and he alone leadeth all, and willeth not the death of any. What then can be asserted or conceived, more horrible than that multitudes of nations and people should under his auspices, and in his sight, from a predestinated decree, be delivered up to the devil, as his prey, to glut his insatiable appetite? Yet this is a birth of the faith of the present Church; but the faith of the New Church abhors it as a monster." "The faith of the New Church cannot by any means be together, with the faith of the former Church, and in case they be together, such a collision and conflict will ensue, as to destroy every thing relating to the Church in man."-Brief Exposition, 66 and 102.

Such being the testimony of a divinely instructed teacher, we, as receivers of that testimony, obviously could not with any regard to consistency, admit into our pages a defence of Calvinism, any more than we

could admit a defence of Atheism. "The faith of the New Church abhors Calvinism as a monster," because it strikes at the root of the self-evident fundamental truth that God is infinitely good, and of what value, we would ask, is religion, if it cease to afford a just and full ground for confidence in the Divine Power, through the inviolability of that divine truth which proclaims the infinity, impartiality, and immutability of the Divine Goodness? Take away this truth, and immediately fear drives away all filial confidence; undermine it, and there is an end of that perfect love which "casteth out fear," by the perfect confidence which never fails to attend it. Confidence in a God who is said to extend "common mercy" to some, and to be "more merciful" to others, must, we rejoice to confess, be vainly demanded of men of that cast of character which distinguishes, and we trust ever will distinguish, the members of the New Church.

In conclusion, there appears some necessity that we should briefly declare what we understand by the Scripture Doctrine of Election, after our explicit assertion, that there is not any such thing as an election to salvation.

(1.) There was an election to the line of the Church,—an election of Jacob in preference to Esau, figuratively expressed by the phrase, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;" (Mal. i. 2, 3; Rom. ix. 13.) but the descendants of Esau might, nevertheless, attain some state of salvation, although not that attainable under the law of Moses.

(2.) There was an election to the faith of the Gospel by the opening of the minds of the apostles and others to see the truth in its own light; whereby they were called to be saved-not under the law of Moses or the law of nature, as others, but under the Gospel covenant of " grace and truth." An election to superior light is grounded in the Divine Omniscience; it is an election to an ability to be saved in a superior degree; it is not an election to salvation, for those who are thus elected are, nevertheless, required to "make their calling and election sure," by "working out their salvation." Those who are thus elected, might have been saved in a lower degree under the lower law, if Divine Love and Wisdom had seen good to leave them under it, and had not called them to a higher dispensation. (See John xv. 16; Acts ii. 47.)

(3.) There is an election to superior light, of all who are prepared to profit by it, if they will; and there is an election to still superior light, of those who profit by that light which they previously enjoyed. (John viii. 12.)

(4.) There ever has been, and ever will be, an election in the spiritual world, to the joys of heaven, of all who, on arrival there, are found prepared for them, through a previous life of charity. (Matt. xxv. 33.) N.S. NO. 53.-VOL. V. B b

It will be seen from the above discriminations, that we admit an election to superior light, or to a more interior faith or acknowledgment of truth, and it is a canon of the New Church, that in order to prevent the greatest calamity that can befall man, the profanation of truth after it has been interiorly acknowledged, perceived, delighted in, and appropriated by obedience, (See Matt. xii. 32; Heb. vi. 4.) the Lord does not allow any one to be admitted into a more interior acknowledgment of truth, than he can, according to the Divine foreknowledge, or rather perfect knowledge of his essential constitution, be kept in to his life's end. For the same reason Paul commences with "Whom He did foreknow," (Rom. viii. 29.) when stating the course of the Divine election. And here we may remark, that had not Calvin set up the notion of salvation by FAITH ALONE, from a desire to run to as great an extreme as possible in opposition to the Romish doctrine of salvation by meritorious works, it is possible he would never have made election to be an election to salvation, but only, as we have done, an election to a faith which MAY lead to salvation. He made election to faith, and election to salvation, identical, by adopting or creating the error, that faith alone saves: after identifying faith with salvation, he could not avoid identifying election to faith with election to salvation.*

[Being unwilling to reject an AN INQUIRER's well-written communication, we consulted one of our brethren of the Magazine Council, who took the pains to draw up the above article, to be inserted instead of AN INQUIRER's paper, and as it meets our own views we have adopted it, and inserted it accordingly. We venture to indulge the hope, that the course we have pursued is that which is best suited to remove the "Difficulties of an Inquirer," and we earnestly pray that the Divine blessing may accompany him in his further search after truth.— ED.]

SIR,

ON THE USE OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS IN

WORSHIP.

To the Editor of the Intellectual Repository.

Would you allow the insertion of a short extract from the Arcana, in reply to the question put by EDINENSIS in your last

We beg to recommend to our readers who are interested in the subject of our remarks, the Tracts in the Glasgow Series No. 7, entitled "The Divine Foreknowledge," and No. 18, " On Free Will," in which, in a very brief space, the question is mainly disposed of in a manner which we deem satisfactory to the reasonable demands of the human understanding.