66

Upon the supposed error of the Tractarian, the Reviewer can see no reason whatever for even Christ's life on earth, his sufferings, or his death; and we believe (says he) the Tractarian saw none himself. That is, he is himself blind, and believes others to be equally so. Like a man born blind, who hears others discourse of sight, yet cannot see, he obstinately denies that there is such a thing as sight, and believes all as blind as himself. Well may he acknowledge that the subject "transcends his comprehension." We believe it does—we in such case rather pity than blame him.

Slow of comprehension, however, as the Reviewer is, he might have seen that "moral evil" is not a positive quality. Moral evil is to the spirit what darkness is to the eye, the absence of light. It is not a positive but a negative quality; that is, it does not consist in doing or taking any thing new, but in losing what has already been possessed. Blindness (often applied spiritually to the state of the sinner) is not a positive evil, but a negative one. "If ye were blind ye would have no sin," says a great authority; "but whereas ye say, We see, therefore your sin abideth." Blindness consists in the loss of light, not in the gain of darkness, for darkness can only be described as the absence of light. The Reviewer adduces the Tractarian's assertion, that "cold is

We reply,-Did not the Lord take our human nature upon him? Was he not tempted in all points, even as we are? He did not take upon him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. But if the nature assumed by our Lord was perfectly pure, free from every tendency to evil, then he did not take upon him the nature possessed by the seed of Abraham, for all the seed of Abraham had this hereditary tendency to evil. Again, if there was no tendency to evil,—no taint in the human nature assumed by the Lord, how, in the name of common sense, could he be "tempted as we are ?" For if the apostle is to be believed, the greater portion of man's temptations arise from this innate tendency of his nature. It is expressly said that our Lord was tempted in all points;" not in a few points, but in all points, as we are: and from this the apostle argues, that knowing well the power of the temptation, he is able to succour those who are tempted. We all know and feel that our own hereditary tendency to evil gives rise to the severest temptations. It is, indeed, one of the most dangerous points in which we can be tempted. If, then, the Lord was tempted in all points, even as we are, he must have been tempted in this point, and if tempted in this point, the nature assumed by him must have had its hereditary tendency to evil, as well as ours, otherwise he could not have been thus tempted.

66

That he was without sin is an undeniable fact: but a tendency to sin is not sin itself. A tree may have a tendency to degenerate and produce evil fruit, but the skill and care of the gardener may prevent it ever doing so. The nature assumed by our Lord was the fallen nature of the seed of Abraham; this nature had its hereditary tendencies to evil; by these our Lord was tempted, but the indwelling power resisted and overcame all temptation, and thus was he "made perfect through suffering."

only a less degree of heat;" and hence, says he,

degree of good."

"evil will only be a less

Will he be so kind (if he can comprehend it) to remember that cold is the deprivation of heat, or, in other words, the loss of heat? In the same manner evil is the deprivation or loss of good. He who loses good is evil, and he who loses warmth is cold. We will go even further than this. As in the coldest matter, there may be some degree of heat, though the sense of touch in us may be too dull to apprehend it, so in the vilest and most debased of characters, there may be, and probably is, a small degree of good, but none that can be of any practical use.

The task is irksome, but we must follow the critic through a few more of his "devious ways." "Physical suffering (says the late Tractarian) follows the infringement of the physical laws;" but, says our Solon, the idea (that spiritual suffering follows the infringement of spiritual laws) is false; for "if I put my hand in the fire to-day I shall suffer for my folly to-morrow, though I be then acting in entire con formity with the physical law I violate to-day." Not a doubt of it, oh, most learned interpreter! and very likely the day after, and many days after. But if you will turn to your Bible, and leave for a time your Confession of Faith," you will find that David suffered physically, for a violation of the spiritual laws, after all was over and he had again returned to his obedience. If a man obstinately close his eyes to the light, and keep them closed a whole year, though he may open them, then and thus act in conformity with natural law, he will suffer the con sequence of his folly. The eye will be weakened, and the admission of light painful. Why should "the suffering vanish at the same instant" with the cessation of the crime? Every evil indulged in, has not only an immediate, but a prospective effect on the mind. When admitted, it taints, and though the outward symptoms may cease, and, as a consequence, the pain and suffering subside, yet the taint, the inclination or temptation to that evil is still there, and makes itself known by many an inward pang.

Let us suppose a man who for years has been addicted to open or private peculation; at length his mind is touched and he becomes honest. He has "put away" his sin, but still the consequences cling to him, as they did to David; and many a worldly sorrow, and many a mental uneasiness, does he suffer, long after the mind has repudiated that evil which originally gave rise to it.

But waiving all these ridiculous objections, we turn to the main point in dispute, The Reviewer considers-(1.) That the Almighty (THE GOD OF LOVE!) does to all eternity hate the miserable sinner; and that it is his pleasure to torture and burn him in never-dying flames

to all eternity. (2.) That God would not even accept the submission of such of his creatures as would turn to him, until his own Son (another God, equal with himself in divinity and power) offered to put himself in his Father's hands, and until he had actually tortured that divine Son during a life of sorrow in the flesh, and at length permitted the Jews to crown their cruelty by putting him to a violent and shameful death, in order to satisfy his own justice.

This, in plain truth, without subterfuge or concealment, is the doctrine the Reviewer is contending for. In truth, we seem to be verging to the furies of Paganism. The tales of Jupiter and Semele, of Jove and Apollo, of Zeus and Athené, cannot be much worse. But we return to modern orthodoxy.

By the death of his Son, the Divine Justice was, it is admitted, satisfied; and since the debt was paid, the debtors, of course, should have been at liberty. But no; for (3.) Although according to modern orthodoxy the full debt, the uttermost farthing had been paid, the debtor is not discharged! The debt of the elect is only to be paid by the continual pleading of the Son, and the debt of the reprobate can never be paid; they are reserved for eternal fire and darkness to the praise of God's (vindictive) Divine Justice!!

"If all the punishment consequent upon sin" be borne, "it renders pardon quite unnecessary and superfluous." So says the Reviewer.* Will he answer a few questions, and answer them candidly?

Did the Lord bear all the punishment due to sin, or did he bear only part of it, and leave the sinner to bear the remainder? If he bore all the penalty due to sin, then the penalty is paid, the debt discharged, and what justice is there in demanding a double payment of the same debt? Why should our Saviour pay it once, and then the sinner be called upon to pay it over again? If our Saviour paid it ALL, the sinner is FREE! the debt is paid! Or if he did not pay it all, but only a part, then the sinner has to pay the balance! Is he able to do this or not? If he be, modern orthodoxy is confuted, for it declares the incapability of man! If he be not, what kind of justice is that which professes to offer pardon to poor miserable debtors-tells them their debt is paid, and begs of them to leave their prison, while yet only a small portion of the debt is discharged, and the miserable wretch is left to suffer eternal punishment for the remainder? Either way orthodoxy fails. Either the sinner is freed, and has therefore nothing to fear, or the Eternal God of Truth is made to change his nature; but "God is not a man that he should lie." The Reviewer, we think, is now on the horns of a dilemma, let him extricate himself as he best can.

* Page 15.

Such doctrines, made up of inconsistency and bold assertion, are enough to turn sensible men into infidels; and infidels many have become from the utter absurdity and manifest inconsistency of the doctrines propounded.

66

Christianity (as we have already observed) is a reasonable service; it appeals to reason, and it is plain in its requirements, so that he who runs may read." But orthodoxy rejects reason, affirms that religion has nothing to do with reason, and that what is required is a blind credulity which takes every mystery for granted, because some assembly of divines have told them it must be so taken. How true are the words of the Reviewer, (pages 15, 16)-"The desire for authorship is surely one of the features of the age, and not a few weak-though not always harmless-publications," such, for instance, as the Reviewer's Tract, have owed their origin to this morbid feeling. Every person who can string sentences together, and some who cannot, must needs appear in a pamphlet."

66

Yet the world is frequently ungrateful enough to laugh at the “amiable weakness" of such maudlin critics as our Reviewer; persons who, having assumed the editorial chair, even though it be but of a penny monthly periodical, one would suppose, ought to know something of logic, and of the construction of a sentence.

"O! wad some power the giftie gi' us,

To see oursels as ithers see us!"

But we must now conclude our remarks, which we with all sincerity offer for the consideration of the Reviewer and his friends.

1. When the Almighty revealed his plan, whereby whosoever would might come and drink of the waters of life freely, he did not intend to deceive his creatures, but really and in truth offered free salvation to all, on the terms laid down in his most divine and holy Word, to turn from iniquity and do that which was lawful and right, and he should save his soul alive.*

2. The means were fully adequate to the end, the opening of a communication between God and man, the subjugation of hell, and the establishment of a medium by which man would approach to God, and whereby God (in human nature) could descend to man.

3. God himself, (not a part of God, so to speak, not one person out of three, but) the ONE ONLY GOD in his Hypostasis, or character of Divine Wisdom, the brightness of Divine Love, took on him human

nature.

* See Ezekiel xviii. and xxxiii. throughout. See also a Tract on ponsibility," in the Glasgow Series.

"Human Res

4. On earth he sustained a continual combat with the enemies of man, conquered hell, sanctified his humanity, and took it into full union with his divinity; and thus not only opened a way to the Holiest, "through the vail;" that is to say, his flesh," but united that golden chain of communication which sin had broken, making himself the medium by which a new covenant was established, and thus exhibiting himself to his creatures as

5. "The ONLY Wise God our Saviour," "God manifest in the Flesh" God (not separate or distinct, or a second person, but God) IN Christ reconciling the world unto himself, (not reconciling it to God the Father, but reconciling it to himself) and making his divine humanity the medium or mediator between God and man, so that ALL may, if they will, come to him and be saved."

Such appears to be the way of salvation in the Scriptures. The late Tractarian so viewed it, and so do his friends, and let the Reviewer prove it false if he can.

We refer the reader to a Tract on the Atonement in the Glasgow Series of Christian Tracts, and now leave him to exercise his judgment, and to decide in his own mind between the Reviewer and our ever dear and lamented friend, the Tractarian.

***

AN ADDRESS FROM THE NEW CHURCH IN GERMANY TO THE GERMAN CATHOLIC SOCIETIES, AND, AT THE SAME TIME, A WORD OF ENCOURAGEMENT TO ALL TRUTH-SEEKING CHRISTIANS.

Most of our readers will probably have heard of the commotion which has lately taken place, and which still continues, in the Roman Catholic church in Germany. This is another powerful sign of the times, and plainly indicates the working of a mighty influence on the minds of men. Everywhere we behold the breaking up of old things, and the way being prepared for the introduction of new; "Behold! I make all things new," is a divine declaration which will be carried out in proportion as the New Jerusalem, descending from God out of heaven, is established upon earth. False dogmas and vain traditions, which have so long held the human mind in bondage and darkness, can only be broken up and dispersed by commotions, -by "earthquakes in divers places." And although, at first, these commotions may not appear to have relation to the New Church and its introduction amongst men, they are nevertheless indispensably necessary to the birth and existence