But the case is widely different with man, who, being gifted with a power capable of restraining the inordinate lusts, by which he is infested, is therefore an accountable being, and must, by the laws of order, which bind society together, be held responsible either here or hereafter for every transaction of his life. The scale of justice, however, as before observed, is not always uplifted in this temporary state of existence: and hence it follows, that a more equal distribution of rewards and punishments will take place in another life; consequently that the soul or spirit of a man, which is the real agent in all his works, will survive the death of the body, the subject either of a wretched or of a blessed immortality.

The argument of this section is not valid. First, the power equal to constitute rewards and punishments in a future life, must be equal to constitute a just distribution in this life; and such a power in existence, and not dealing out this justice, must be an unjust power. The injustice of the first instance is the worst of all arguments, that it will be remedied in the second. We must have a better moral code than this, before we shall have a moral people. A delay of jus tice is injustice: and punishment is only just where it follows instantly upon the offence. The reason why crimes go unpunished, in the present state of society, is, that we have an inefficient legislature. An efficient legislature; a few such Jurists as the venerable Jeremy Bentham, would soon set this matter right; if they could but legislate accordingly.

The question of instinct is still more futile. Instinct in beasts, is like instinct in man; self-preservation, and self-gratification, are its motive principles. It is a thing of the pas sions. We act as we are organized or taught to act. If all the men who have lived had entertained this notion about immortality, the argument would not be conclusive, that desire constituted the possession. But the fact is, that a very small portion of mankind, but for a very short lapse of time, have been taught or entertained any notions of the kind. If desire be equivalent to possession, we should have a very powerful and universal instinct after that kind of wealth which feeds and gratifies the body, without labouring to produce it. No inferences of this kind will ever prove positive existences: we must have positive, visible, sensible proofs. Without these, it is of no value to us, whether we believe or not. What is not present, or to be present, cannot concern us.

I proceed to your three following sections, as they will require but a few words.

CARLILE'S VIEW OF SWEDENBORG'S WRITINGS.

XIV. Or the writings of Baron Swedenborg Mr. Carlile delivers his judgment in the following terms, p. 610: "Of all the Christian sects, whose

tenets have come under my view, those of Swedenborg are the most preposterous." That is to say, 'Of all the doctrines maintained by the professors of Christianity, those of the New Church are the most opposed to the system of Materialism and Atheism! the farthest removed from error, and the fallacious appearances of nature!' Why, Lucifer himself could not have paid a higher compliment to the good sense and discernment of her members. But it was unintentional on the part of Mr. Carlile, as well as of his ally: we therefore consider ourselves absolved from every obligation to either of them.

"

Again, in the same page, he says, My conclusion of him (Swedenborg) is, that he first deceived himself with spiritual reveries, and then, finding that he could deceive others by the same means, he proceeded to add imposture to his own delusions." After quoting some highly important propositions from Mr. Clowes's pamphlet on the Two Worlds, the Visible and the Invisible, which lead to the most satisfactory conclusions, Mr. Carlile proceeds to give the heads of Emanuel Swedenborg's treatise on Heaven and Hell, with some extracts from the same, which cannot fail, in the estimation of every unprejudiced reader, to counteract the silly and absurd comments put upon them by a man, who professes and demonstrates his entire ignorance of spiritual things. Of these comments I have room to notice only one, and that is the following.

"Swedenborg (says he) has deprecated the doctrine of the Trinity, in so far as the Godhead is said to consist in three persons; but he has, in his arithmetic, committed still greater blunders, if possible, than the abused Trinitarians. He says, There is one heaven, and that the one heaven is like a man; that heaven is divided into two kingdoms; that this one heaven and two kingdoms are three heavens; that this one heaven, two kingdoms, and three heavens, consist of innumerable societies; and that every individual of every society is also a heaven!" After some other equally stupid remarks, Mr. Carlile adds, "You may tell me, that I do not understand spiritual things. I confess my ignorance; but I understand, that, when a writer is repeatedly contradicting himself, he is either a knave or a fool."

THE PRECEDING OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

XV. HERE Mr. Carlile attempts to hold up to ridicule the idea of one heaven (in a universal sense) consisting of two kingdoms, three heavens (in a less general sense), and innumerable societies, each individual of which is also a heaven in particular, or in its least form. But had he for a moment attended to the comparison, which is suggested by Swedenborg, of heaven being like one man, he must have seen, that, as the human form, though one, is still arranged according to an order that admits of general and particular divisions, all acting in perfect unanimity and harmony, so heaven in its universal form is in like manner arranged according to a similar order. Man, taken universally, or in the most general view of his frame, is under the dominion of two vital principles, that actuate every part of his body, namely, those of the heart and the lungs, both concurring by their peculiar functions to maintain the life of the whole. The same observation applies to the will and the understanding, which are formed for the reception of love and wisdom, that these two might exercise a joint authority over the whole mind. This universal arrangement may shew what is meant by the two kingdoms, into which the one heaven is divided. Again, according to another view of the human frame, nothing can be more evident, than that it is arranged into three general divisions, namely, the head, the trunk of the body, and the lower extremities, each subject to the

dominion of the heart and the lungs, and each concurring to form one man. And this arrangement clearly shews what the enlightened author further means, when he says, that heaveu, though in a universal sense it is only one, is still, in a sense less general, to be regarded as consisting of three heavens. Lastly, as the human body, viewed with respect to its particular constituent parts, consists of innumerable members, organs, viscera, bones, cartilages, membranes, vessels, muscles, fibres, fibrillæ, &c. &c., and yet all conspire to one end, and each has an action or function, peculiar to itself; the same life, which animates the whole form, ruling in, aud giving a distinct power of action to, every most minute part of the organi zation; so in like manner, but spiritually considered, the universal heaven consists of innumerable societies of blessed angels, each individual of whom participates in the life which is common to all, and each performs that particular function or ministry which is assigned to him, in such a manner as to promote and exalt the harmony, perfection, and happiness of the whole. The same kind of arrangement is to be found in every living, organized subject, the work of a divine hand. It may be seen also, in its measure and degree, in the labours and contrivances of human ingenuity, as in a house, a time-piece and numerous other things; in a house, which, though one habitation, consists of a foundation, a superstructure, and a roof, with chambers of various descriptions; and in a time-piece, which, though one machine, consists of a spring or weights, wheels, and a dial plate to shew the hour. In each of these cases, and others which, might be mentioned in the way of illustration, that which is one in a general point of view, is yet, in a particular and subordinate sense, composed of many individual parts, which all conspire, by the harmony of their construction, to produce one result, one end, and one use. Where then is to be found the absurdity, or the contradiction, either in arithmetic or in common sense, which Mr. Carlile pretends to have detected, but in his own ignorant and thoughtless mind, which leads him to confound all distinctions, and to triumph in the shame of a perverted understanding?

With these observations I shall dismiss the present subject, not doubting but every intelligent reader, after witnessing the miserable attempts at argument, which have been in vain directed against the writings of Baron Swedenborg, and the doctrines contained in them, will be led to acknowledge, that the channels of truth are still pure and unpolluted, while the floods of infidelity, atheism, and ungodliness, are fast sinking into the opening earth. Rev. xii. 15, 16.

CARLILE NOT PROPERLY A DEIST, BUT AN INFIDEL, A MATERIALIST, AND AN ATHEIST.

XVI. It is usual to call those who deny the scriptures, and still believe in the existence of a Supreme Being called God, by the name of Deists. But the editor of the Republican cannot rank as one of that description, because he acknowledges no God but Matter, and no revelation but the Book of Nature. He is, therefore, truly, and properly speaking, an Infidel, a Materialist, and an Atheist. And these names are not given to him in the way of scorn and contempt, with a view to injure his character unfairly and unkindly; but they are titles and appellations of his own choice, the use and application of which are distinctly authorized by himself. Deism is with him a kind of milk-and-water system, not sufficiently characteristic of the sentiments he has adopted, or of the bold conclusions to which the pride and folly of self-derived or dust-originating intelligence have conducted him. Unlike the Theophilanthropists of France, who figured away for a time during the period of the Jacobinical Revolution, he can discover no

traits of wisdom or benevolence in the creation; but in the spirit and language of a discontented Theomisanthropist, that is, of one who "neither fears God, nor regards man," Luke xviii. 2, 4; or rather of one who hates them both, he upbraids the former, if (as he says) there be such a Being, with want of design and even cruelty in the formation of man; and the latter, among whom he is himself an unworthy individual, he reproaches as a “depraved, ignorant, and contemptible" race. As an unbeliever in the Bible, which he says is "neither true in history, nor in physics," he is an Infidel; as a supporter of the infinity and eternity of matter, he is a Materialist; and as a denier of all spirituality even in relation to a Supreme Being, he is nothing less than an avowed Atheist. On the absurdities attending Atheism and Materialism enough has been said in the preceding pages; a few observations, however, shall be made on the subject of Infidelity, or that part of Deism, which will not allow the Sacred Scriptures to be a divine revelation from heaven.

In the fourteenth section, yours is a mangled quotation of my statement of the heads of the absurdities of Swedenborg's doctrines. I refer you back to my letter, in No. 20', Vol. 8, to see whether my statement is not fully warranted by the heads of the chapters of the volume, entitled, "A treatise concerning heaven and hell," and the contents of that volume. All that is said by way of explanation, in the fifteenth section, is beside the question, and does not concern me. For an answer to the sixteenth section, I refer you to the general matter of this letter; but, in particular, to its commencement.

I come to the seventeenth section, on which I shall expatiate freely and largely.

LESLIE'S ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE TRUTH OF

THE BIBLE HISTORY.

XVII. "I TELL you, (says Mr. Carlile, p. 625,) that the Bible is neither true in history, nor in physics; and I further tell you, that it is not even moral." Three distinct charges are bere made; the first of which is, that the Bible history is false. On this point, I cannot do better, than quote the unanswerable arguments of a late respected clergyman, the Reverend Charles Leslie, M. A. in his Short and Easy Method with Deists. This author had been requested by a former Duke of Leeds to prove, in some concise and decisive way, the truth of the Bible, and of Christianity in particular. In the space of three days he produced a draught of the work above-mentioned, and presented it to the Duke, who, after perusing it with attention, said, "I thought I was a Christian before; but I am sure of it now: and as I am indebted to you for converting me, I shall henceforth look upon you as my spiritual father." A pious clergyman, the Rev. W. Jones, M. A. says of the same little work, that "the world affords nothing so effectual on the Christian evidences."

The method I will take, (says Mr. Leslie,) is, first to lay down such rules, as to the truth of matters of fact in general, that where they all meet such matters of fact cannot be false. And then, secondly, to shew, that all those rules do meet in the matters of fact of Moses, and of Christ; and that they do not meet in the pretended facts of Mahomet, and the heathen No. 12, Vol. IX.

deities, nor can possibly meet in any imposture whatsoever. The rules are these 1. That the fact be such, that men's outward senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges of it. 2. That it be done publicly in the face of the world. 3. That there be public memorials of it, or monuments and actions kept up in memory of it. 4. That such monument, and such actions or observance, be instituted, and do commence from the time when the fact took place."

The two first rules, he observes, preclude all attempts at imposture; the fact being exposed to the investigation of the outward senses and the two latter as effectually guard against any subsequent invention. For example; suppose any man should pretend, that yesterday he divided the Thames, in the presence of all the people of London, and carried the whole city, men, women, and children, over to Southwark, on dry land, the waters standing like walls on both sides; I say, (continues Mr. Leslie,) that it is morally impossible, that he could persuade the people of London, that this was true, when every man, woman, and child, could contradict him, and say, that this was a notorious falsehood, for that they had not seen the Thames so divided, nor had gone over on dry land. Therefore it is plain, that no such imposition could be put on men, at the time when such public fact was said to be done. The third and fourth rules equally secure against imposition in after-times; for there being no memorials or public observances instituted at the time of the pretended fact, nor regularly continued to a future age, any attempt to deceive the public must have been instantly detected.

Mr. Leslie then examines the Mosaic dispensation, and by these rules exhibits its reality and truth in the most conclusive, satisfactory manner. Could Moses have persuaded six hundred thousand men, that he had brought them out of Egypt, through the Red Sea, and fed them for forty years, without bread, by miraculous manna, if the facts recorded had not been true? No! because every man's senses, who was then alive, must have contradicted the assertion. Could the passage of the Israelites over Jordan, in memory of which twelve great stones were set up in Gilgal, be a fiction, when the whole nation were witnesses to the truth of the fact, and their children from generation to generation were reminded of the event? No! because an imposition of this kind could never have been played off upon a whole people, neither would they have handed it down to posterity in records of their most undoubted history. Could any man at this day invent a book of statutes, or acts of parliament, for England, and make it pass upon the nation as the only book of statutes that they had ever known? As impossible was it for the books of Moses (if they were invented in any age after Moses) to have been received for what they declare themselves to be, viz. the statutes and municipal law of the nation of the Jews. Was there ever a book of sham laws, which were not the laws of the nation, palmed upon any people, since the world began? If not, with what face can