In the present day, the incitements to and aids in religious speculation abound. The laity (except in respect of time for study) stand in as favourable a position for examining the "bases of their belief" as the clergy themselves; and men everywhere claim the privilege which Paul conceded, "Let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another; for every man shall bear his own burden," Gal. vi. 4, 5. The attempt to attain uniformity of belief, and to avoid in the Church, presently after the Apostles' | Mackintosh in favour of Independency or times. Between the Apostles' times and Congregationalism, in its political influence this presently, there was not time nor possi- upon and relations to society at large. "They bility of so great an alteration (as that from disclaimed the qualifications of national as Presbyterian to Episcopal government), and repugnant to the nature of a Church. The therefore there was no such alteration as is religion of the Independents could not, withpretended; and therefore Episcopacy being out destroying its nature, be established by confessed to be so ancient and catholic, must law. They never could aspire to more than be granted to be Apostolic-quod erat de- religious liberty, and they have accordingly monstrandum" (Works, ii. 531, et seq.). It the honour to be the first, and long the only, is this very act of the Primitive Fathers, in Christian community who collectively adopted perpetuating that which was merely tempo- that sacred principle. . . . . The governrary and adopted to suit the exigencies of ment of Cromwell, more influenced by them the time when Christianity was first pro- than by any other persuasion, made as near mulgated, which we condemn as erroneous. approaches to general toleration as public We admit, with John Angell James-one of prejudice would endure; and Sir Harry the best men who have graced the Indepen- Vane, an Independent, was probably the first dent ministry that "no case occurs in who laid down, with perfect precision, the inspired history where it is mentioned that a inviolable rights of conscience, and the exchurch elected its own pastors" (Church emption of religion from all civil authority." Members' Guide, 2nd ed., p. 12), but this (View of the Reign of James II., p. 166). does not disprove our right of choice in the present age. If Paul could minister to us in things spiritual now, and could appear in our midst to choose for us our pastors, we should willingly resign the right into his hands; but we cannot and dare not intrust it to any uninspired man, though he could trace his succession step by step to the Apostles' age. Nay, the New Testament has expressly directed us to exercise this choice, to "try the spirits whether they be of God," to "beware of false prophets." The church of Ephesus was praised, because it" diversities of opinion," by means of "artihad "tried them which say they are apostles," and our Saviour himself declared "if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself," John vii. 17. We have been supplied with a full description of the character to be sought for in our teachers, see 1 Tim. iii., Tit. i. 5, &c. "The spiritual man judgeth all things; but he himself is judged of no man," 1 Cor. ii. 15. Christianity has great influence upon the world: the effects of its purity or corruption tell immensely upon society, for good or for evil. "By their fruits shall ye know them," and the text condemns Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. We need only point to one era of our country's history, that of Charles I. and the Commonwealth, to learn the intolerance and power for evil which these two principles possess. In contrast, we may quote the testimony of Sir James cles" and "canons," has now become utterly futile and useless. Congregationalism alone provides for the crisis, and alone can coexist with it. Imperfectly as the principle is worked out, it yet has power to render the Baptist and Independent bodies comparatively stable and peaceful, while all the other communities of our land are tottering in the storm. Congregationalism, by allowing absolute freedom of inquiry, and by taking away Church government to substitute Church association in its place, destroys the possibility of schism." The Universal Church thus becomes a great firmament of thought, where star differs from star in glory, and in distance from the central light of God's absolute truth, but where each reflects some rays of Divine Wisdom as it moves in its own appointed path. To those whose minds yearn after a closer unity of opinion, we may suggest that our differences of belief may be only apparent that truth in this stage of | fication, and the fatal result of erroneous or our existence may be only relative. Lan- ambiguous terms, we may hope that the guage is the instrument of human thought, and we all know how imperfect it is. If, then, our tools are inefficient, can the workmanship be exact? When we recollect how natural science lay bound hand and foot for ages by the Aristotelean form of reasoning, and the inexplicable jargon of the schools; and how social science and theoretical jurisprudence have suffered from imperfect classi variations of opinion on theological subjects may yet converge to a narrower compass. Perhaps, when we have reached a higher stage of being, we shall find that our differences here were but various distortions of the same truths, arising simply from the imperfect and varying nature of the media through which they passed-the minds of fallen men. B. S. Philosophy. HAVE WE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT COMMUNICATIONS ARE NOW MADE TO MAN FROM A SPIRITUAL WORLD? AFFIRMATIVE REPLY. THE duty which devolves upon us, in virtue of our position as the opener of this debate, would be light indeed, had we simply to reply to the arguments which have been brought forward on behalf of the negative side of the question. Our opponents have expended their chief strength in attacking our affirmative theory; but we may remind our readers that the affirmation of the actuality of "spiritual communications" at the present epoch may be held to, and argued for, quite independently of any theory of ours. Our opponents, in neglecting the general question for a somewhat acrimonious notice of our special advocacy, have betrayed the interests of their party. Had our opening demonstration been designed as a sort of literary stratagem, in order to draw off our opponents' forces from the most advantageous points of attack, it could scarcely have been more effective for that object. We proceed summarily to dispose of the two first articles which have appeared in the negative interest. If we mistake not the symptomatic ideas and phrases which occur in the productions of W. G. D. and "Halket," both of these writers belong to the Unitarian denomination, and respectively to the Channing and Priestley schools into which it is divided. The tendency of Unitarianism to gravitate to Deism, and thence, through Materialism to utter Infidelity, is well marked; and, we imagine, the prestige of this sect, with its characteristic scepticism-resulting from "s state of insubordination to a dominant idea," such as "God manifested in Christ" is to such as grasp this fundamental tenet of the Christian faith-will scarcely add weight to the advocacy, by these gentlemen, of the negative side of the present question. "Halket" appears to admit that our ideas have, at least, some shade of support from scrip ture. This he will probably regard as a very small concession to our views; but we are sure it will not be without its due weight with the great majority of our readers. His philosophic arguments open up the question at issue between spiritualism and materialism-a question we cannot enter into in this connexion;-suffice it to say, that his reasonings are selected from the stock arguments of his school, which, in their essence, have been answered over and over again, only to be reiterated in new forms and in fresh connexions, as occasion offers. W. G. D. commences by observing, "nothing could have been said on our (the negative) side with effect till an article in the affirmative had appeared." What is this but to admit there was "no case?" Wherefore W. G. D., in conformity with a well-known legal maxim, proceeds to "abuse opponent's advocate." We are relieved from any extended notice of his article, since our friend of the hieroglyphic arrow has answered him in detail; and we need only reply in the proper place to the strictures of B. S. on the Hieroglyphic's" "peculiar" reasoning. 46 66 its Divine Creator and Sustainer is immutable;-if" the material world" appears "to In B. S. we recognise our chief opponent obey prescribed laws imposed upon it," it is on the present question. He has earned a because the inward causes are nearer or reputation as an astute, well-informed, and more remotely connected with the omnipogenerally consistent writer in this periodical; tent, omniscient, and omnipresent First as such, we give him that attention which Cause. We maintain that the material his tone and subject-matter on the present world is sustained, both in regard to motion occasion would scarcely entitle him to. He and matter, by a constant going forth of has dealt largely in ridicule (we repeat) creative energy from Deity. This is what "that weapon so easily wielded, so potent is meant by "sustentation (or preservation)" with the weak, so weak with the wise." Our being equivalent to perpetual creation;" general stricture on this, the pervading tone and this great truth, too, is implied in the of his productions, is, that ridicule may be postulate which asserts all created existences used against anything and everything, and to be in a constant state of connexion with, is most effective with that order of minds it and dependence on, the First and only Indeweighs with, when employed against the pendent Life-the "I AM" of revelation. highest and holiest subjects. We are satis- In other words, " existence in perpetual subfied that we have transcribed and given cur- sistence." That "motion is derived primarily rency to ideas-seeds of truth-which will from life," is something more than "a mere take root and spring up in the soil of con- assertion of a Living Creator." It is the genial minds, despite the adhering spawn assertion of a providential "co-ordination of deposited by this toad of the intellect. B. S. phenomena," which we contend has effect is candid enough to admit the possibility of even in "the motion of the rolling avalanche, his having misunderstood our terminology. &c." We opine our philosophy goes further Now, this doubt, if sincerely entertained, to realize the christian tenet, "Providence should, at least, have deterred him from any in all things," than does that of B. S. The laboured attempt to appropriate our "pecu-zeal which B. S. has manifested in attacking liarity of language" for the purposes of our postulates (which were not meant for ridicule. Nothing, we opine, but an over- such as him, but rather as tentative to inweening desire to find occasion for the fidelity in its many phases) too plainly shows exercise of a depraved taste, would lead the animus which called forth his remarks. him to make such an egregious mistake as Our opponent displays a taste and method that which lies at the bottom of his proposal in the art of ridicule, which says a great to" combine the third and fifth postulates." deal more for his ingenuity than his scrupuHe here confounds "creation"-a noun of losity. It is convenient for his purpose to multitude, signifying the totality of things assume for the nonce an independent position created-with "creation"-the act of crea- for "Hieroglyph's" article, and forget that ting or conferring existence, to which it is its "peculiar "reasoning was called forth by asserted, in the third postulate, that “pre- the article of W. G. D. It was this preceding servation" is equivalent. As for the other writer who dragged the "parable of Dives,” postulates, happily, they may be illustrated and the "Judgment scene," into the discusin the course of combating a dogma put sion, in order to prove, after a fashion, his forth by B. S., as emboding the true philo-negative proposition-the intermediate state sophy of nature. "The course of nature," is not mentioned in these parts of scriphe says, "is fixed. The material world ture, therefore it does not exist—such is his obeys prescribed laws imposed upon it by reasoning! Our friend showed (and we beg the Divine Creator." In this low and super-to indorse his argument) that the interficial view of creation, it is represented as mediate state, so far from being precluded being the subject of an outwardly imposed by its not being specified in the passages momentum-a sort of huge clock-work, alluded to, is actually implied therein. To wound up at the epoch of creation, and insinuate that these passages of scripture contrived to go on till the day of judgment. were brought forward formally to prove the But we beg to submit that if "the course of existence of the intermediate state, is simply nature" appears to be "fixed," it is because to misrepresent our friend's position. To readers with the school to which we belong, and leave them "to judge of the respective results" of our efforts. We acknowledge, then, the divine commission of Emanuel Swedenborg, and accept his teachings in theology, religion, and philosophy, as the truth. It is our reading of his philosophy that we have endeavoured to exhibit in connexion with the present subject; and if we have introduced that portion of our subject-matter which embodies this philosophy, in an hypothetical garb, it was purely to accommodate it to our design, which was to "steal a march" upon the prejudices of some of our readers. Perhaps we owe them an apology for this; but if we had not had the fullest confidence in the truth of the ideas we have assisted in giving currency to, and a personal experience of the satisfaction they yield, we had never put pen to paper for such an object. The "rappings," and other phenomena of the present day, purported to be "spiritual," have served as a "stalking-horse" on the present occasion. The credence we yield to their spiritual character is founded purely on testimony. We have not even had the small amount of personal evidence which B. S. rejoices in. The amount and respectability of the testimony to certain facts is such, that we deem it more reasonable, as well as more charitable, to assent rather than to opine wholesale deception and delusion (admitting for a moment the possibility of such extensive and uniform collusion as is implied); but then, we are not "in a state of subjection to apply terms which are appropriate enough in their application to the spiritual sphere to the objects and relations of the natural sphere (as B. S. has done in his note-parody) is very funny! Perhaps it may take rank as wit! Let it pass for such; "wit is not wisdom." "The confusion between states which have no locality, and the spheres, which may be either a locality or a state," does not exist in the original, since both terms are predicated of the spiritual sphere; where, it is expressedly asserted, space does not exist. How many things which are perfectly true of the infirm human subject, would be "painfully absurd" if predicated of "Deity with all the holy angels; " but then the absurdity is perpetrated by him who makes the application. In the present case B. S. is amenable to the charge. All this is rather discreditable in one who so formally and patronizingly parades his "sole allegiance to truth when endeavouring to aid in forming the opinions of the readers of this magazine." We are sure "the readers of this magazine" will not fail in assigning the true value to these cheap professions of B. S. Well might B. S. suspect that his "ordinary weapons" would "surely be vain" in this debate. Obviously a word-dealing logic is inefficient either to probe or explain the ideas which normally belong to such a subject. Our "theme" is superlogical, and as such it is "dangerous to sober thought," with those who cannot rise above the trammels of a mere word-philosophy; and if, from our superlogical position, we are ineffective for forcing the convictions of logic-a dominant negative idea," such as supposes ensconced intellects, we, at all events, enjoy an immunity from the attacks of this wordwielding class. We can afford to smile at the difficulties raised by our opponent and fondly-deemed insurmountable-his "trilemma," on one horn of which we must be impaled"-they occur to us as the puerile objections of a mind incognizant of the elementary premises and principles of the system it attacks. Had space permitted, we should have liked to have pursued many subjects which our opponent's tentativeness has opened up. It would have afforded us an occasion for showing forth the fulness and profundity of a system capable of responding to the probings of a deeper intellect than B. S. has manifested. All we can do in the present connexion, is to acquaint our 99 66 "the impossibility or extreme improbability" of such things. Our readers will at once understand the importance of the present question in our regard. But if every other evidence of spiritual communication in these times failed, still Swedenborg's case stands forth and challenges belief, as it proves its actuality in his own person. The indubitable proofs external and internal-are before the world, and more than this, the fruits of his intercourse with the spiritual sphere during a period extending over twenty years are there,—a mass of information on all those subjects which are important and interesting to man, his nature, his relations to Deity, his future destination, &c. In his case, at least, we can furnish good reasons "why" he appeared in the 18th century, at as the proper form of the former. Evil once dominant in the will, naturally attracts the intellect endowed with truth, first to connive at, and then to favour its propensities. The world-long struggle between evil and truth has developed every phase of superstition, which, we repeat, is spiritual rottenness progressing towards dissolution; and thus (paradoxical as it may appear to some of our readers) superstition has greater affinities for infidelity than for pure religion. This accounts for the oft-remarked juxta-position of gross superstition and rampant infidelity; the one being a state of decay, the other the consummation of that state-a mere negation in regard to religion. What are we to think of the charge of "credulity" so freely made against us? In its proper sense this term is merely relative, and may be as appropriately used to stigmatize a creed which attaches undue powers and causes to nature and natural agencies, as to one which recognises the direct agencies of the spiritual sphere, where those agencies are not. Thus we think B. S., in attributing (without a tittle of that specific evidence which, on his own showing, ought to guide our verdict in such a matter) the worst of motives and (if judged by their effects, certainly) miraculous powers of deception to "30,000 media in the United States," together with an implied belief in the defective mental constitution of those who are convinced by these "30,000," has shown a very unamiable credulity. a time when the world was sunken in scep- In conclusion, and in view of the warning B. S. has dealt out to us against our "speculative philosophy in connexion with religion," we would ask him if he is not aware that the fertile cause of scepticism and infidelity is the antagonism which at present exists between the orthodox creeds and positive philosophy; and that, consequently, a union between religion and philosophy becomes a desideratum? We think we have found such a union in the system which has our adherence. We therefore invite our readers in general, and B. S. in particular, to NEGATIVE REPLY. As we are honoured with the title of Commander-in-chief of the invading army, we shall, like a good general, take our stand come BENJAMIN. upon the highest peak we can gain, and thence, through our telescope, survey the operations of the field. We see that th |