prayer Himself has taught me, by the prophet David. May you, my friend, experience similar benefits, and long continue to experience them, in a larger measure than I have!

I now come to the consideration of the best general principle upon which to proceed, in order to perpetuate during the day the heavenly impulse first given to the affections in the morning. I am aware that the Holy Word presents for my selection an inestimable store of heavenly truths suitable for my purpose, and yet on this occasion I prefer to pass them by, in order to adopt a passage from the Diary of Swedenborg (quoted in I. R. No. 71, page 405), as embodying, in a brief and most emphatic manner, the main-spring, or hinge, upon which turn all the practical truths of the Word. I cannot adequately express the depth and intensity of my feelings, when first I read this passage. It seemed to me as if the dews of heaven fell upon me in almost too copious showers. And happy was I to find, that others of my friends were affected by it in a similar manner. How any mind, capable of feeling such super-celestial truth, could, after reading it, entertain any disparaging thoughts of the writer of it, seems to me a mystery of mysteries. If the full light of the sun be any evidence that the day has dawned, then is this passage an evidence that “ the day-spring from on high has again visited us to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet in the way of peace."

The title of the article referred to is this :-" "That man himself, his natural ideas and his spiritual things, should be compared to vessels that yield."* The author then proceeds to tell us, that he had had a remarkably clear spiritual perception, "that NOTHING ELSE is required with man than that he should be a YIELDING VESSEL!" Here, then, is a wondrous summary of the way of salvation. How beautifully does it harmonize with and embody the Apostolic exhortation above quoted!

* Whatever may be discerned as peculiar in the diction of the Diary, as if there were sometimes omitted words necessary to the fulness of the sense or perfection of the expressions, it is sufficiently accounted for by the fact, that the author considered it enough, in making memorandums for his own exclusive use, if he could understand them himself. The wonder rather is, that observations penned under such circumstances should be so complete, and so intelligible to others, as they are. It is probable that the expression "vessels that yield," was deduced in the mind of the author, from the important distinction between the healthy vessels of the human body which yield responsively to the impulses of life, and so perform their uses; and the rigid unhealthy vessels which resist those impulses, and thence not only refuse to perform their own proper uses, but interfere with the capacity of other vessels, which are not as yet disordered, in the discharge of their offices.

"Nothing else" is required of us all day long, and every day, in order to our realizing all the blessings which the Lord can bestow, than that, in receiving the Lord's inflowing life and spirit, we should be "yielding vessels." In order that our idea of this matter may be full and complete, the author adds the explanatory words, that is, "that all things pertaining to us (even to the minutest particulars) should be, as it were, yielding, and thus applying themselves, and consequently be applied, to those things which are infused by the Lord through angels and spirits, so that there be no resistance or aversion to those things which are infused.” I am tempted to copy the remainder of the passage (including both paragraphs n. 2470-1), but as you have the Magazine to refer to, it is, perhaps, unnecessary to do so. For my part, I have copied it out and placed it in my Bible for frequent reference, and I am persuaded that others may do the same with much profit and delight. I only add that Swedenborg shews afterwards, that none can be such yielding vessels, except by virtue of the truths in which they have been instructed. We, then, have that capacity in fulness, because it has been given to us to become acquainted with "the heavenly doctrines of the New Jerusalem." Thus every one of the truths included in these doctrines, has impressed upon it inherently this dictate, or inherently possesses the tendency to persuade us,―to yield to the Lord's leading and guidance. How thankful ought we to be for this privilege of realizing all that is required of man!--for this is the same as realizing all that God has promised to bestow. "Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift!"

The Apostolic words seem here very applicable, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" May we obey from the heart that form of doctrine,that "heavenly doctrine," which has been delivered to us in the writings of Swedenborg, that being thus made free from the bondage of sin, we may become the servants of righteousness, freely and delightedly yielding our members,-all the particulars of our souls and bodies,servants to righteousness unto holiness!" Thus being "servants of God, we shall have our fruit unto holiness, and, in the end, everlasting life!"

SIR,

THE SUPPOSED DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE
APOSTLES PAUL AND JAMES.

To the Editor of the INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY.

Your readers are well aware that there has existed, for ages, an opinion that the apostles Paul and James differ in their statements of the all-important doctrine of man's Justification in the sight of God. Paul has been supposed to be the advocate of Justification by faith alone, or without "deeds of law of any kind;" James, of Justification by works of justice, or works of righteousness. When learned doctors disagree it is sometimes difficult to decide between them; nor is the decision always of much importance ;-but when Inspired Apostles are supposed to disagree, the discrepancy must involve the most serious consequences. It would seem that neither the lapse of time nor the critical researches of the learned can settle this question critics refer one to another; and the reader of the New Testament must, after all, exercise the right of private judgment, and decide for himself.

Dr. Bloomfield, to whose critical and exegetical notes we have already more than once made allusion, gives the following specimen of his discernment on this highly-important question, in a note on the original reading of James ii. 21; the English version of which is "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" He says "In proof and illustration of the foregoing assertion, of the necessity of good works to a true justifying faith, the Apostle adduces the examples of Abraham and Rahab. Aveveyxas is well rendered by Professor Scholefield, 'in offering up,' (i. e. in being ready to offer him up;) for it is always regarded in Scripture as a real sacrifice. Abraham's justification by faith had, indeed, taken place before this offering up of his son, and as Professor Scholefield observes, all that this action did towards it was supplying the evidence of the nature of the faith by which he was justified." For a complete refutation of the discrepancy which at first seems to subsist between St. James and St. Paul in faith and works, the reader is referred to Bishop Bull's Harmonia Apostolica. Suffice it here to say, with Mr. Wesley,-"There is no contradiction between the Apostles; because, 1. They do not speak of the same faith; St. Paul speaking of a living faith,-St. James here of a dead faith; 2. They do not speak of the same works; St. Paul speaking of works antecedent to faith,-St. James of works subsequent to it."

Now what Dr. Bloomfield could have discovered in any thing that John Wesley ever wrote on the subject of divinity that should have thus biassed his mind, we cannot imagine; he is, however, fully satisfied with Wesley's opinion, which, at best, amounts to nothing more than mere assertion. Paul and James speak of different faiths and of different works;-no proof is offered of the truth of this assertion; but Dr. Bloomfield thinks it sufficient that Wesley has said so.

Not having so high an opinion of Mr. Wesley's sufficiency, as a Biblical critic, as that entertained by Dr. Bloomfield, we shall take the liberty of ascertaining for ourselves whether Paul and James did, or did not, speak of the same faith, and of the same works. The faith of which James speaks he denominates (chap. ii. 1.) as "the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory." To us this appears to be the same faith of which our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the Lord of glory, speaks when he exhorts his disciples (Mark xi. 22.) to "have the faith of God. ”* Of this same faith, doubtless, James also speaks when he says (chap. i. 3.) that the trial of it worketh patience; and in this same faith it is that he advises his readers to pray, nothing wavering, (ver. 6.) reminding them (chap. v. 14-18.) of the effects of such prayers, in perfect harmony with what our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, said on the subject. (Mark xi. 23-24.) Such then, is the faith of which the apostle James speaks;—a faith in and from the Lord;—a faith which makes one with charity; and so far was he from recognising any thing short of this as deserving the name of faith, that he denounces all pretensions to it, how specious soever, as absolutely vain, and of no more efficiency than a body deprived of its spirit. If then Mr. Wesley considered this faith as a dead faith, it was incumbent on him to adduce proof to that effect; much more was it binding on Dr. Bloomfield to do so when, as Editor of the Greek Testament, he pronounced Mr. Wesley's saying as sufficient. We should consider it a waste of time, a work of supererogation, to go here into the proof that the faith of which we have just spoken as being taught by James is perfectly identical with that everywhere taught by Paul in his epistles; we even feel it a duty we owe to the intellect of the reader to offer some apology for mentioning what must often have occurred to his own mind, viz., that the best commentary on the epistle of James is to be found in the thirteenth chapter of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians,

But Mr. Wesley affirms, moreover, that Paul and James do not speak of the same works ;-Paul, he informs us, speaks of works antecedent to faith, James, of works subsequent to it ;-that is to say, on Mr. Wesley's * This is the correct reading of the original text.

own shewing, Paul speaks of works done antecedently to a living faith, and James, of works done subsequently to a dead faith. In this case there may be some shew of truth in the first part of the sentence, but what becomes of the truth of the latter part of it? If James is speaking of a dead faith, then, according to Mr. Wesley, he must mean that a man is justified by works subsequent to such faith! In what part of the writings of either Paul or James Mr. Wesley found this curious distinction, we are quite at a loss to discover; perhaps when he wrote the sentences which are so satisfactory to the mind of Dr. Bloomfield, he was thinking of the thirteenth article of the Church of England, an article which is gratuitously believed by thousands to be based on Scripture authority, while in reality it stands in direct opposition to the whole tenor of divine revelation.

But this apart, we venture to say that wherever Paul speaks of good works he means works done from good motives, whether such works were done before faith in Christ, as in the case of Cornelius the Centurion, or as in the case to whom his epistles were addressed, and who professed to hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. Hence we find him, when inculcating all the relative and social duties, with all the amenities of life, saying to Titus, his own son after the common faith:"These things I will that thou constantly affirm, that they who have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men." (Titus iii. 8.) In the case of Cornelius, the pious centurion, there is certainly distinct mention made of works done while in a state of ignorance as to the character and work of Him in whom the divine law was magnified, and by whom its "exceeding breadth" was expounded; but such mention is fatal to the notions of Wesley and the Solifidians. According to Paul, the case of this man would stand on a level with that of those of whom he says-" For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," &c. (Rom. i. 13, 15.) Even Professor Moses Stuart is constrained to admit, on this subject, that "the voice of conscience, which proceeds from a moral feeling of dislike or approbation, and the judgment of the mind, when it examines the nature of actions, unites in testifying, that what the moral law of God requires, is impressed, in some good measure, even on the hearts of the heathens." On this point Professor Stuart's testimony is true, being only an echo to the declarations of Scripture, that God is no respecter of persons, but that in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. (Acts chap. x.)

From the above remarks, which we deem it quite unnecessary to carry