a dilemma; or, as Professor Stuart's countrymen would, not unaptly, call it," a fix," which, being interpreted, is, in the present case, an impediment, an obstruction, a hindrance to the exercise of INFINITE WISDOM.

Now for this impediment an expedient must be found, or all is lost. But where is such expedient to be found? If Infinite Wisdom has got its foot entangled, who is to disentangle or rid it from its difficulty, or take it out of confinement? Professor Stuart informs us that the Divine Wisdom devised an expedient for its own release. 66 The death of Christ," he says, "is an expedient of infinite wisdom, by which the full claims of the Law may be admitted, and yet the penalty avoided, because a moral compensation or equivalent has been provided, by the sufferings of him who died in the sinner's stead." Has this language any meaning? Is the penalty of the Law no part of its claims? Does not the whole system of orthodoxy rest on the dogma that Christ paid the penalty of the Law in full of all demands? Is not this what the learned Professor means by a moral compensation or equivalent? If, then, this penalty was paid, or what is the same thing, a moral compensation or equivalent was provided for it, what are we to understand by its being "avoided"? Is the paying, or satisfying, or rendering an equivalent for a Just claim, the setting aside or avoiding such claim? Such, however, it appears, is the philosophy of orthodoxy; hence we are further informed that this same demanding and exacting, or setting aside and avoiding the penalty of the Law has produced a most remarkable effect, as well it might ;—it has made the exercise of God's mercy consistent with his Justice ! Surely we shall not be accused of straining this precious thought if we add,-Consequently, until the death of Christ, the mercy and Justice of God were opposites, or inconsistent with each other; what else can be meant by their being made consistent?

We have now arrived at the climax of orthodox absurdity, and shall endeavour to do it all manner of justice. David, it would seem, was like minded with Dr. Bloomfield, Professor Stuart, Bengel, and all the orthodox together. He, being a prophet, and fully acquainted with the discord existing between the divine attributes;—he seeing, long before it took place, the reconciliation of the four attributes which quarrelled and parted at the fall of man, thus sang concerning the so much to be desired event:-"Mercy and Truth are met together; Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other." (Psalm lxxxv. 10.) Now with all due deference to the critical acumen of the above-men

* "Expedio, I disentangle, rid, I rid a thing from its difficulties, &c. That is, I take my (pedem) foot (ex) out of confinement. Contrary to Impedio."—Valpy.

tioned divines, and to that of their numerous admirers, we would venture to ask how the aversion of man from his Maker could set the divine attributes at variance with each other? Had the apostacy of man such power over the attributes of Jehovah? Again we ask, if David's view of the Divine character was such as is attributed to him, how comes it that from beginning to end of his sacred songs he sings the very contrary? To enumerate instances of this would be to fill a volume. The Law, yes, reader, the Law, which seems to be such a terrible thing in the eyes of all sound Evangelical Christians ;-the Law, we repeat it, was, in the estimation of David, precious beyond all comparison. David and all who preceded him, with all who followed him, testified that the Mercy and Truth, the Righteousness and Peace of God, instead of having parted and opposed each other, conjointly followed man in all his wanderings; and in the fulness of time appeared in all their harmony, in all their fulness, in all their glory, in the person of Him who came to seek and to save them that were lost. Let all the Bloomfields, and Bengels, and Stuarts in the world contradict or disprove this glorious truth, if they can.

ΙΑΚΩΒΟΣ.

ORDINATION.

66

GOD ALMIGHTY hath given to every man a measure of grace to profit "withal;" and hence there is no one that is not fitted, in one way or other, to be a benefactor of his species. Some," says Paul, "he ordained apostles; some prophets; some preachers and teachers;" and this ordination-this conferring of gifts, comes "not from man, nor from the power of man," but from God alone.

When God bestows his gifts upon any man (whether those gifts consist of ten talents, or only one) he does so, not for the benefit of the individual alone; but that by his means, and through his improvement of the talents bestowed, all around him may be edified and improved. The man therefore who "hides his talents in a napkin," is guilty both towards God and his fellows; for he both misapplies the "gift of God within him," and deprives others of the benefit which that gift was intended to confer.

When Saul, the persecutor of the church, was led to believe in and adore the Saviour, he neither sought for human sanction, nor waited to obtain it. No sooner was he convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, than he commenced his public ministry; "confounding the Jews that dwelt at

Damascus, and proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ;" and this conduct of the apostle ought to be imitated by all who know and love the Saviour. It is their duty to seize every opportunity of instructing and warning those around them; and this duty they cannot omit without becoming guilty in the sight of God.

66

‘But are all then to become preachers?" In a certain sense, I answer yes! It is true that all are not fitted to mount a pulpit;-all are not fitted to explain the doctrines of Revelation openly to the world; and why? Simply because the gift of explaining and enforcing the Word is not given to all. But every one, in his own little circle, may find others more ignorant or more careless than himself, and these it is his duty to instruct and to warn as far as possible. In this sense every man is called upon to become a preacher, and to minister of his spiritual things to those who are destitute.

And the office of the public ministry is only an extension of these private ministrations. The gifts necessary for both, come from God alone; and where 66 a dispensation of the Gospel" is committed to any one, it is at his peril if he neglects to use it; "woe unto him if he preach not the Gospel." No matter whether he has received any human sanction or not,—no matter whether he is outwardly ordained or not; it is his bounden duty to preach the Gospel, and "woe unto him" if he does not preach it, even if all around set their faces against him. has a right to "obey God rather than man."

He

It is strange that in the New Church, where truth is clearly shown forth, and in which internal things and inward feelings occupy (or ought to occupy) the chief place, there should exist such a desire to trust in external forms, and merely outward ceremonies. But such is the nature of man. It is easier to adopt a peculiar dress than to obtain purity of heart; and much easier to perform certain ceremonies than to walk in the path of inward duty; hence the tendency to substitute forms and liturgies for faith and charity; and to rest contented with the name instead of the nature of a Christian.

Yet it is even more strange that in a church which derives no succession from the apostles, and which repudiates the idea of such descent, men should be found who insist that without ordination-outward ordination, no man is fit to take upon himself the office of the ministry ;— yet such is the case, and while these sticklers for forms are endeavouring to thrust their ceremonials on the church, the rest of the Christian world ridicule both themselves and their pretensions.

If there be any benefit derived from ordination at all, it must either arise from the ceremony itself,—from the person administering it,—or N. S. No. 73.-VOL. VII.

B

from both together. But surely no member of the New Church will affirm that the mere pronunciation of a form of words, or the performance of a certain ceremony, can confer the gifts and graces necessary to form a minister! This would be deriving the spiritual from the natural with a vengeance! Nor can any such member assert with consistency, that one person (however pious and talented) can confer that piety and talent upon another, by laying his hands upon him. Neither can any member of the New Church confer the authority of a minister upon another; because he cannot give what he himself does not possess; and it is necessary therefore first to ascertain that he himself possesses that authority. We are thus led back to the person who ordained him; for if the person who conferred ordination upon him was not himself ordained, he could neither ordain nor give authority to another. And now comes the question "Who ordained the first ministers of the New Church?" Swedenborg we know was an appointed messenger of God; but Swedenborg neither ordained any one, nor thought of ordaining any. Whence then do the authorised and “ordaining ministers" derive their ordination?

The account given is, that lots were cast, and he to whom the lot fell ordained his fellows. But how could he give them the authority of ministers, when he himself had no authority? What he had not he could not give. He had not the authority of minister, and consequently he could not give it! The whole fabric of New Church ordination falls thus to the ground, like a wall built up with "untempered mortar."

"Oh! but," says one, "the decision of the lot was a plain declaration of the will of God!" Is this your firm opinion, my friend? And are you willing to allow the conclusion which follows from that opinion? If so, then I again assert, the Conference ordination falls to the ground; for,

What it was lawful for the first followers of the New Church to do, it is still lawful for their successors to imitate. If the decision of the lot is to be looked upon as a testimony of the Divine Will, there is not the slightest need of any "ordaining ministers" at all! When it is necessary in a society that a minister should be chosen and ordained, all that is needful is, "to cast lots" to whom the office of ordaining shall fall, and then, as in the first instance, to act upon the decision. There needs no appeal to Conference; no reference to "ordaining ministers," nor any thing except the act and deed of the society itself. That society can examine the candidate; that society can, by lot, appoint the ordainer-and the ordination thus conferred is as valid, to every intent and purpose, as is that of the Conference" ordaining ministers" themselves

If, then, the mere words of ordination can confer neither gifts nor graces;-and if the person ordaining cannot communicate any authority, of what value is ordination at all? In a spiritual sense, none whatever: and as a mere ceremony, used for the sake of order, it is, as now insisted on, calculated to trammel and injure, rather than to benefit the church.

If God has given to any one the gifts of a minister, He certainly intends him to use them;-for the Almighty never gives any thing except for use. It surely, then, must be right for such a man to assume the office of a minister, and to preach to others; since this is only making a proper use of the gifts bestowed. In such case, of what use is ordination? Does it fit him for the ministry? No; the Lord has already done this! Does it give him authority to minister? No; for when the Lord gave the power, he gave the authority to use that power! Of what use, then, can ordination be to such a one? Of none whatever, except as a mere ceremonial! It confers no gifts; it increases no usefulness; it gives no authority but what the individual already possesses. If the man is fitted for the ministry, and called of God, all the hands of all the "ordaining ministers" in existence cannot add to his authority, or increase his fitness: while on the other hand, if he is not called to the ministry, and not fitted for it, all the ordination that could be bestowed would not fit him for it, or authorise him to enter on the work.

The mere ceremonial of ordination is, therefore, as regards any spiritual effects, useless. It is of no use to him whom God has called, for he is authorised already. It is of no use to him whom God has not called, for it cannot give him any authority. If a man has talent for the ministry, it can add nothing to him; if he has not talent, it cannot give it.

I have not the slightest objection to the ceremony of ordination, provided it is acknowledged to be a mere ceremony. There are many things which may be adopted by the church for the sake of decency, which yet confer no spiritual blessing in themselves; and if this is merely a declaration before the church, that they believe the person to be a chosen minister of God, and acknowledge him as such, I find no fault with it. But when it is made an essential qualification for the ministry, and when we are told that no one has a right to minister in Holy things, without first undergoing this ordeal, I do most solemnly set my face against it, not only as useless, but as presumptuous, inasmuch as it denies the right of God to choose his own messengers!

Indeed I see not how the sticklers for Conference ordination can avoid