DR. MOEHLER AND SWEDENBORG.

DR. MEHLER, who died in 1838, was a Roman Catholic divine, and his name is widely celebrated in Germany; few theological writers of the present period have exercised so extensive an influence. This has arisen partly from his great talents as an author, and partly from the comprehensive and generally impartial views he has taken of the doctrinal differences, on the most essential points of Christianity, between the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches. In a work entitled "Symbolism, or an Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants," Dr. Mohler analyzes the symbolism, or doctrinal differences of what he calls the "smaller Protestant sects," amongst which the "Swedenborgians" are enumerated. To the consideration of the doctrines unfolded by Swedenborg from the Holy Word, he devotes forty-four pages of his work. So extensively has this work been read in Germany, that within six years from its publication (in 1832 to 1838) it passed through five editions; and the learned author, when occupied with revising the last edition, was arrested, to the sorrow of his numerous friends, by the hand of death. The symbolism of the doctrines of the New Church, which occupies an entire chapter of this work, had, we are informed, previously appeared in a periodical emanating from Tübingen, called the " Quarterly Review."

No sooner had this article appeared from so distinguished a pen, than the indefatigable champion of the New Church in Germany-Dr. Tafel, endeavoured to set the public right upon the subject, and to counteract the misrepresentations and erroneous deductions of Dr. Mohler respecting the doctrines of the New Jerusalem. This Dr. Tafel did in the German "New Church Magazine," and also in a work entitled "Swedenborg and his Opponents," &c., and most sincerely were it to be wished, that this vindication and refutation could be read by all who have perused Dr. Mohler's Symbolism.

To the translation of this work is prefixed a Memoir of its late author, which occupies 134 pages, in which the present theological aspect of Germany is exhibited to view. The readers, however, of Dr. Mæhler's work must bear in mind, that its author and translator, being Roman Catholics, view things more or less from the point on which they stood, and the infallibility of the teachings of the Romish Church is obviously the guide-post of their thoughts and decisions. In the

*This work has been translated by James Burton Robertson, Esq., the translator of "Schlegel's Philosophy of History."

Memoir there is a passage adduced from the pen of an eminent Protestant writer, in which is a sketch of German Protestantism, from the commencement of the Reformation down to the middle of the eighteenth century. This sketch we shall here present to our readers :—

"The first fifty years," says this writer, "that followed on the outbreak of the Reformation, witnessed incessant wranglings, disputes, and mutual anathematizings, between the several Protestant parties; first between Luther and Zwinglius, next between the rigid Lutherans and the Crypto-Calvinists, and so on. When, after long intrigues, and tedious negotiations, the Chancellor of Tübingen, James Andrea, succeeded, about the year 1586, in obtaining acceptance for the so-called Formulary of Concord, the theological strife receded from the arena of public life into the school; and for the whole century that followed, the Protestant Church was dis. tinguished for a narrow-minded polemical scholasticism, and a self-willed, contentious theology. The Lutheran orthodoxy, in particular, degenerated more and more into a dry, spiritless, mechanical formalism, without religious feeling, warmth, and unction. The same authors of the new faith, that had with so much violence contested the Church's prerogative of infallibility and her tradition, desired now to claim for their own symbolical books a divine origin, and an exemption from error. They, whose religious community was founded in the principle of recognizing Scripture as the sole standard of faith, now disputed its right to be the exclusive depository of the Divine Word. They, who had refused to the Catholic Church infallibility, now pretended to an absolute and immutable possession of revealed truth.

"In opposition to this Protestant orthodoxy, that had fallen away from the fundamental principle of the Reformation, and therefore clung with the greater obstinacy to the letter of its symbolical books, Spener insisted upon a living faith rooted in the regenerate will, and undertook to revivify religion, that had perished in the stiff forms of a mechanical orthodoxy. But from his very confined views on philosophy and speculative theology, from his aversion to all settled and and defined religious notions, from his indifference about dogmas in general, from his deficiency in a solid ground-work of learning, and an undue propensity to a false mysticism (whereby he bears a remote affinity to the Quakers, and other sects); from all these defects, Spener was unable to bring about the completion of the Reformation, which he had promised, although on several leading points he entertained convictions, which fitted him for reforming the Lutheran doctrines.

"The Protestant orthodoxy having succeeded, by anathemas and persecution, in reducing to temporary silence the first commotions of the yet impotent Rationalism, sank into soft repose on its pillow. But, in the midst of German Protestantism, an alliance had been formed, which at first appeared to be of little danger, nay, to be even advantageous, but which soon overthrew the whole scaffolding of doctrine, that the old Protestant orthodoxy had raised up, and precipitated Protestant theology into that course, which has in the present day led it entirely to subvert all the dogmas of Christianity, and totally to change the original views of the Reformers."* Confusion greater than this can scarcely be conceived. To a Newchurchman, Dr. Mohler's work is eminently useful. The dreary scenes

"Der Protestantismus in seiner Selbst-Auflösung, von einem Protestanten. (Protestantism in its Self-dissolution, by a Protestant.) Schaffhausen, 1843, pp. 291-3, vol. ii.

of desolation, as to doctrine, are clearly exhibited to his view, and the " abomination of that desolation" is opened before him. The conviction that an interposition of Providence was necessary to put an end to the dreadful confusion, forces itself upon us with extraordinary power. And in what manner could this divine interposition be effected, but by a new out-pouring of divine light through the opening of the Spiritual Sense of the Holy Word? Through the vain traditions and false dogmas concerning every subject of Christian doctrine, the Philistines and Babylonians had entirely stopped up the wells of revealed truth in the divine Word, and a new state of things could be brought to pass only by the removal of these obstructions, and by causing the waters of salvation to flow pure and genuine from their only source. This is what Swedenborg has, through the divine mercy and guidance, accomplished. He has added nothing new to the Holy Word, which, indeed, contains the fulness of revealed wisdom, and he has taken nothing from it, but he has removed the rubbish which for ages had accumulated around and upon the mouth of the Well, and prevented the human mind from being refreshed, purified, and regenerated by the waters of truth.

Symbolism, as a science, is new in this country, and by it is understood "the scientific exposition of the doctrinal differences among the various religious parties opposed to each other." Symbolism has, therefore, neither a polemical nor an apologetical aim in view; it merely professes with the strictest impartiality to state from the only authorised sources the doctrinal differences between the several Christian communities.

It is important that the sources should be pointed out from which Symbolism must draw; on this subject Dr. Mohler says:—

"It is evident that the public confessions, or symbols, of the ecclesiastical communities in question, must, above all be attended to, and hence hath the science itself derived its name. Other sources, meanwhile, which offer any desirable explanation, or more accurate decisions, in reference to the matters in hand, must not be neglected. To liturgies, prayers, and hymns, also, which are publicly used, and are recognised by authority, Symbolism may accordingly appeal; for in these the public faith is expressed. In appealing to hymns, however, great prudence is necessary, as in these the feeling and the imagination exert a too exclusive sway, and speak a peculiar language, which has nothing in common with dogmatic precision. Hence, even from the Lutheran church-songs, although they comprise much very serviceable to our purpose, and some peculiar Protestant doctrines are very accurately expressed in them, as also from Catholic lays, hymns, and the like, we have refrained from adducing any proofs."-(Vol. I. p. 7.)

We sometimes hear it stated that Swedenborg, in pointing out the doctrinal differences, had recourse to works now scarcely recognised in N.S. NO. 52.-VOL. V.

S

the theological world. But the works to which Swedenborg appeals, namely, the Augsburgh Confession and the Formula Concordiæ,* as delivering the orthodox sentiments of the Protestants, with which the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England are nearly agreed, and the symbol sanctioned and confirmed by the Council of Trent, as exhihiting the doctrines of the Romish Church, are the very sources which Dr. Mohler asserts, -are the only legitimate from which Symbolism, as a science, must draw its points of difference between various dogmas and creeds. Other sources, such as the works of distinguished men,—of Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zwinglius, Wesley, &c.,-who are almost universally acknowledged as orthodox authorities by the parties whom they lend, are likewise legitimate sources of symbolic science. Hymns, prayers, thanksgivings, &c., acknowledged by different churches in a liturgical form, may also be employed, says Dr. M., to point out the doctrinal differences existing between different parties. +

66

Dr. Mæhler then proceeds to point out the difference in doctrine between the Roman Catholics and Protestants, respecting "the primitive state of man and the origin of evil;❞—on original sin and its consequences;"-on "the opposite views maintained by the two parties respecting the doctrine of justification;”—on “justifiying faith," and on "good works." On all these essential points of doctrine, the impartial reader cannot but become conscious of the fact, that the so-called reformers made everything concerning these subjects infinitely worse than they found them. Far better had it been if the Reformers had left these points of essential doctrine untouched, and had confined themselves, in their work of reformation, to the bringing out of the Word, to the distributing of it among the people, and to the removal of those horrible abuses with which the Romish Church abounded, and which were the proximate causes of the Reformation. When the Protestants declared "faith only" to be the alone justifying and saving medium, they opened the flood-gates of hell upon the Church, and "the abomination of desolation" appeared, and hastened the time of the Consummation.

In opposition to the "justification by faith only," the Catholics maintained their doctrine of justification per fidem charitate formatam, that is, by faith which worketh by love. It is painful to see to what lengths

*The Prussian Government has of late renewed the edict that all candidates for the ministry must sign the "Augsburgh Confession."

+Swedenborg, in his letters to Dr. Beyer, adduces passages from hymns sung in the Swedish Church which acknowledge the supreme divinity of the Lord.-See Intel. Repos. 1842, p. 299.

human reason can go in defending even the most direfully false proposition, when the will is once determined to carry its point. We will adduce an extract or two from Luther's Commentary on the Galatians, in which he defends "faith alone" against the Catholic doctrine of "faith working by love:"

"Our Papists, and Sophists," says Luther, "have taught the like, to wit, that we should believe in Christ, and that faith was the groundwork of salvation; but, nevertheless, that this faith could not justify a man, unless it were the fides formata; that is to say, unless it first received its right form from charity. Now this is not the truth, but an idle, fictitious illusion, and a false, deceitful, misrepresentation of the Gospel. On this account, what the senseless Sophists have taught respecting the fides formata, that is to say, the faith, which should receive its true form and shape from charity, is mere idle talk. For that faith alone justifies, which apprehends Christ by the word of Scripture, and which adorns or decorates itself with Him, and not the faith, which embraces in itself charity. For if faith is to be certain and constant, it should apprehend nought else, cling to nought else, save the one Christ. For, in the anguish of the conscience, it hath no other stay, but this precious pearl. Therefore, should the law affright a man, and the weight of sin oppress him, as much as they are able, he can, nevertheless, when he hath apprehended Christ by faith, ever boast that he is yet just and pious. But how cometh this to pass? And by what is he rendered so just? By that noble treasure and pearl, which is called Jesus Christ, whom by faith he has made his own."

And again:

"The adversaries, in support of this their pernicious and poisonous doctrine, adduce the text from the thirteenth chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians: 'If I spake with the tongues of men and of angels, and if I should prophesy, and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge; and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.' This text the Papists regard as their wall of iron. But the dull, stupid asses can neither understand nor perceive anything in the writings of St. Paul, and therefore, with this their false interpretation, they have not only done violence to the words of St. Paul, but they have moreover denied Christ, and set all his blessings aside. Therefore we must beware of this doctrine, and regard it as a very diabolical and hellish poison; and conclude with St. Paul, that we be justified by faith only, and not 'per fidem formatam charitate."

We often read in Swedenborg, that in consequence of the doctrine of "justification by faith only," the good works so frequently mentioned in Scripture, are reduced and degraded to mere acts of civil order, which it is necessary for a man as a member of civil society to practise, in order that he may avoid the penalties of the civil law, but which, if performed with a religious view, by no means contribute to salvation, but rather condemn. Now to shew that Swedenborg was correct in this assertion, we will here adduce Luther's reply to the question, "What need, then, is there of the moral law, or of the ten commandments, if faith alone justifies ?"

"They," says Luther, "who are just observe it, not because they are thereby