assurance that they shall receive no ill effects from it. They confess themselves to be the vilest of sinners, and declare that they deserve God's most righteous condemnation; not, however, because they inwardly believe it, but because they entertain a secret notion that there will be less necessity for the Almighty to convince them of His terrific power, when he finds that they already acknowledge it, and tremble before it. The prominent view which any class of Christians take of God, will naturally give a corresponding tone to their remarks in conversations respecting Him. Hence, with the class of Christians alluded to, thunders, lightnings, tempests, God's power in forming the earth, in creating the heavens with the myriads of suns, are the chief lenses in the material creation, through the help of which they can conceive of the divine Being, and the chief mediums by which they make Him known to their fellow-creatures. For a similar purport are those passages of the Holy Word continually set forth, which give an idea to the sensual mind of anger and rage as dwelling in the breast of God: while, on the contrary, those passages which represent Him as an everr-kind Parent to His rebellious creatures are passed by, being considered tame and comparatively uninteresting and ineffectual for the work of conversion, owing to their presenting little that is congenial to minds capable of being incited to action only by the strong arm of power awakening their selfish apprehensions. It may however be said, that this admiration, or rather apprehension, of divine power, is productive of humility, and is, therefore, beneficial. But if we reflect for a moment, we shall find that such humility is of the very shallowest and lowest description. It does not convince them of their utter destitution of goodness, contrasting such conviction with an admiration of the unutterable goodness of God, associated with an humble desire to be led by Him, and become a form receptive of truth and goodness from Him; but it consists in a sense of their physical weakness as contrasted wtih God's omnipotence, perfectly abstracted from all moral and spiritual goodness. It is, in fact, the trepidations of abject ignorance rather than the feeling which accompanies a sound and rational conviction, moderated by a good hope, founded on a just view of the divine character-such, indeed, is true humility. While these false views respecting the nature and quality of the divine Being lead those who entertain them (as they must do of necessity) to form false estimates of goodness and truth, and consequently tend to give a wrong bias to their inward motives and out ward actions, how thankful should those of the New Church be to have the Lord exhibited to them as He is! Love itself! Life itself! How should such a favour increase their humility, Christian meekness, and docility, with an inward reverence for His holy name,-His infinite righteousness! How careful, too, should they be not to pervert the truth, and abuse the mercy of the Lord, by separating His goodness from His wisdom (thus making it merely natural goodness) flattering themselves they can be the recipients of His mercy while living any known sin, or sin which they are unwilling to discover. It is acknowledged by all, that there is nothing in the doctrines themselves which has any tendency to encourage a vague confidence in a false view of the divine mercy; but there is much in the imperfect recipient of truth tending to pervert and abuse even a just view of it; there is much in our unpurified affections which may render of none effect, or, what is worse, defile the sacred truths which are floating in our understanding. in HEAR THE CHURCH. (No. 3.) To the Editors of the Intellectual Repository. GENTLEMEN, 66 A FEW words on the writer's views of the sacrament, and the administration of that holy ordinance. Our friend is unwilling to go to such an extreme as to advocate the promiscous administration of the sacrament," and says (I trust in an unequivocal sense of the words), "We fully appreciate the apostle's advice, 'Let all things be done decently and in order.' And yet that order, established by the apostles, and acted upon by the Church in the first three centuries (as already shewn), does not appear to meet with his approbation. He seems to be opposed to ordination altogether; and intimates, that it is supposed by some that ordination confers a "peculiar fitness or mystic power:" or why make the remark? If this is not his drift, "forgive me this wrong.' But does it not so appear from p. 218 (for it is the language of bitter complaint), where we read thus,"The conference possesses no power to confer the ministerial office; that is said to reside in the ordaining minister only; and the orderly and lawful administration of the sacraments is considered by many to belong exclusively (the italics are his own) to such ordained ministers." 'Here is the grievance. This is the very head and front of offending. And is it then, MORE ORDERLY that lay preachers should administer the sacraments, than that previously approved, and therefore ordained ministers, should do so? Is this right reasoning? Is it consistent with the "order" to which the writer of the article accedes, and which he "fully appreciates." And again, (to follow out the observations quoted from p. 228), it is further stated, that "it is often assumed, that ordination confers validity on the ministerial office, and that the ministerial dispenser confers validity on the sacrament." If the term "validity" is intended in some "mystic" sense, then I say, and that boldly, that " no man taketh this honour unto himself." If something supernatural, some mystic spiritual power residing in the "ministerial dispenser," be the explicative to the inuendo-if this is intended to be implied-then, I ask, by whom is this assumed? Is it intended to apply to those of the Old Church, or to those of the New? Are they lay preachers? Of course not. I admire their zealous exertions; their laborious zeal; their self-denial; their unassuming and honourable course. Does it apply to the orderly ordained ministers of the New Church? "I trow not." Are they the communicants of any New Church society known to the writer? If so, I commiserate their state of ignorant simplicity, if any such unenlightened persons are to be found within its precincts. These, certainly, require to be better taught and if they have not gained better information from sermons on the occasion, let them consult the Liturgy; they may be instructed on the subject even during the administration of the ordinances, if the Liturgy is used, which is calculated to disabuse the mind of all such superstitious notions, both in reference to minister and people. And if the ordination service is carefully perused, it will be seen that such insinuations, when thrown out against the ministers of the New Church, cannot justly be drawn from thence. And here, methinks, is one instance of the utility of the Liturgy, the approved formulary of the Church, if there were none other use. Its articles, its ordination service,-form of administering the sacrament -meets and answers queries as to the belief of the Church on such points, and is sufficient "to convince gainsayers." But strip the last quotation from J. W. H. of its "questionable shape," and it will by no means fright our "ministers from their propriety;" but they will, rather think, take the affirmative of the position, and adopt it as a sentiment; i. e., if the term "valid" is taken in the sense of that which is done in due form and according to constituted rule. But can nothing be done in due form and order without attaching some mystic idea or power to the deed or to the doer? Absurd. I think I may take N. S. No. 36.---VOL. 3. 3 N the liberty, in the name of every one of the ministers of the New Church, to disclaim such notions, and repudiate such a charge. "Order is heaven's first law." "Heaven and the Church is a form of order." "The Lord is order itself." "The laws which relate to God form the head of the Church; those relating to a man's neighbour forming the body; and ceremonial laws forming the dress: for unless these latter contained and preserved the former in their order, it would be as if the body were stripped naked, and exposed to the summer's heat and the winter's cold.” (U. T., 55.) “Divine order fills all and every thing in the universe." (Ibid., 106.) "What is order without distinction, and what is distinction without proofs, and what are proofs of distinction without signs or tokens, by which its quality may be made known and ascertained? for without the knowledge of quality, order is not known to be order. The signs, or distinguishing marks, in empires and kingdoms are titles of rank, and powers of administration annexed to them, whence come subordination, and hence the co-ordination of all into one body." (Ibid., 680.) I was not a little surprised, when reading that part of the article where the writer says (p. 289), "The public ministry of the Word appears a much more important and onerous duty than the mere performance of a religious rite ;” i. e., the sacrament, in the "performance" of which nothing more (in the opinion of the writer) is required, than "merely the facility of reading decently"!!! And in a preceding page it is asserted, that though the sacraments "were not neglected by the apostle, they were justly esteemed by him of secondary importance to preaching the gospel and the reception of true evangelical faith." I have no idea that the apostle Paul held the sacrament in so light an estimation. See 1 Ep. Cor. chap. 10, ver. 16, 17, 21, 31; and chap. 11, ver. 20 to end. From these passages it is evident that the apostle did not view the administering that ordinance as "the mere performance of a religious rite." And with regard to baptism he says, "I was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel." He was called to the apostleship in a different manner to the other apostles; and in his commission there was not expressly included, as in theirs, the observance of the ordinance of baptism. But he did baptize, for it was not forbidden him; and, although a Jew, "circumcised the eighth day; yet he, like his divine Master, submitted to that Christian rite, as we have - before shewn. Twelve men were re-baptized who had previously been baptized with John's baptism; they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus," in which name John did not baptize; and then Paul "laid his hands upon them, and the holy Spirit came upon them." (Acts, ch. 19, ver. 1-7.) He also baptized "Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue," at Corinth; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized." He baptized "the whole household of Stephanas;" after which "they addicted themselves to the ministry (diakoviáv) of the saints." Preaching or teaching was, indeed, the first, and baptism the second, in order-in the commission given by the Lord to his apostles after his resurrection. And this seems to be the order observed by them, and by the Christian Church in the first three centuries; and after baptism, that of the holy supper was administered, which, though last, is not least in importance. (Acts, chap. 2, ver. 41, 42; chap. 8, ver. 12, &c., 3538; chap. 10, ver. 34 to end). In this sense the sacraments were "secondary" to preaching, and followed believing; and this is the order in the New Church; not that their importance is lessened thereby, but that they rather become more important, and are distinguishing "signs and tokens" between infidels and those who profess to be members of the Christian Church. (Acts, ch. 16, ver. 31-33). Justin Martyr, one of the earliest writers of the Christian Church, says, when a person had been baptized, "he was received into the number of the faithful, who then sent up their public prayers to God for all men, for themselves, and for him that had been baptized. (Apol. 2, p. 97). Neither were all persons permitted indiscriminately to partake of the sacrament of the Lord's supper, but only those who had been baptized, believed the articles of the Christian faith, and lived consistent lives. Hence Origen writes,-"It doth not belong to every one to eat of this bread, and to drink of this cup." (Com. in Joan. vol. 3; tom. 28, p. 345). The communicants were, such as were baptized and received both the credentials and practicals of Christianity." (Just. Mart. Apol. 2, p. 97, 98). Baptism always preceded the Lord's supper :-"It is not lawful for any one to partake of the sacramental food, except he be baptized." (Ibid.) It appears, then, that neither the administering nor the receiving of the sacrament was considered by those early Christian writers of "secondary importance," although not first in the order of time. And yet they were not believers in the doctrine of transubstantiation. Origen calls the sacramental elements," the food that is sanctified by the Word of God, and by prayer." And Justin Martyr, in the place before quoted, says, “When the minister hath given thanks, and the people said Amen, the deacons distribute the elements." And,-" Bread and wine are offered to the minister, who, to the utmost of his abilities, sends up prayers and praises, and the people say Amen." I think there must have been |