the various parts of the human body; deeming that if the order of all these could be rightly seen, the mind would be able to go beyond that common deduction which declares God to exist and to be good, wise, and powerful, in the same sense in which these attributes are attributable to man, and to have different views of goodness, wisdom, and power, themselves. In fine, his work is not an attempt to lead men out of atheism, but to lift them above theism into revealed religion. In this it differs essentially from every other treatise of apparently similar pretensions.

The view he takes of the body is, to a great extent, mechanical; but then he predicates a mechanism of the fluids as well as of the solids. He applies every where the doctrine of series. Some glimpses of important rational physiological knowledge have been seen by Cerus and other writers; and it has been applied by them to the bones. Thus they have aimed to shew, that all the bones, including those of the cranium, are repetitions of the vertebræ; in a word, that in the bones there is but one principle and many modifications. Now, Swedenborg has carried this through the soft part as well as the bones, and through the fluids equally with the solids. With him every thing is a series and in a series.' The whole of the viscera are a stupendous series, in the higher parts of which (the brain, for instance) every thing goes on that goes on in the lower. Thus the lower are so many legible illustra tions of the higher; the diffuse organs of the abdomen and chest are explanations of the concentrated cerebrum. We shall not dwell further on this law, but simply observe that Swedenborg so consistently applied it as to arrive, by induction, at the existence of an animatory motion in the brain, synchronous with the respiratory motion of the lungs ;-& doctrine which has much to do with the whole of his physiology.

"His opinions upon the spleen, the thymus gland, and the suprarenal capsules, are, to say the least, extremely curious, and, at any rate, consistent with the rest of his theory: how far they may be admissible in modern science, or consistent with it, is another and a widely different question. This, however, we will say, that the amount of mere anatomical knowledge of these organs which has been added to the store since his time, is (notwithstanding Sir Astley Cooper's splendidly-printed quarto on the thymus) altogether insignificant; so that Swedenborg may, upon these points, be almost as well tested by the knowledge of his own day as by that of ours.

"Swedenborg's ideas of the uses of respiration are, to our mind, altogether new, and if true, of great importance, as modifying our views of nearly the whole field of physiology.'

Here the Reviewer introduces an extract from the Translator's "Introductory Remarks" on the uses of respiration; after which he concludes, by saying:

"We have now done with the Animal Kingdom;' and we honestly declare, that be its merit great or none, or in whatever intermediate category it be placed, it stands alone amid scientific writings, and is a monument, at any rate, of the persistant daring and originality of Swedenborg's mind."

REVIEWER REVIEWED;

BEING STRICTURES ON "A REVIEW OF THE ALLOA CHRISTIAN TRACT FOR THE TIMES. ALLOA: ALEXANDER WINGATT."

THERE has lately been a hot controversy going on at Alloa, between the few members constituting the society of the New Church in that village, and the editor of a penny monthly newspaper called the "Clackmananshire Advertiser." The late Mr. Thomson, whose obituary appeared in a late number of our work, having put forth a Tract on the Divine Justice, the "Clackmananshire Reviewer" undertakes a "refutation of the more prominent errors therein set forth." But as our readers will anticipate, instead of refuting the errors in Mr. Thomson's Tract, he only attempts to bolster up the falling system of Calvinistic orthodoxy. We will therefore, attempt a "refutation of the more prominent errors set forth" in the Reviewer's Review. Solomon gives us some seemingly contradictory advice when he says,-" Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." And again: :- "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be like unto him." How, then, can we act? That the Clackmananshire Reviewer has abundance of self-conceit, may be very obvious to all who read his Review with attention. We shall answer him so as, if possible, to shew and reprove his egotism. We shall not, however, answer him personally. It is the system of falsehood that he supports that we shall attack, by which we hope to escape the censure of Solomon, and not make ourselves like to the Reviewer. But after all, he seems so wedded to his folly, that we have not the vanity to expect we shall beat it out of him. We write, however, not for him, but for those candid minds who, open to conviction, will examine our statements, and then judge between them and those put forward by the champion of high Calvinism.

It is a singular fact, that while in natural things men are struggling to obtain clear views and correct definitions, their conduct in spiritual things appears directly the reverse. In matters of religion all is mystery and uncertainty; and however profound the views of modern theologians may be, it is impossible either to bring them to reason or apply reason to them.

It is a pity that to be unreasonable should be a recommendation of modern theology, yet so it is. It is a pity that men who acknowledge the absolute necessity of reason in every other case, should here dismiss their guide, and prefer anything or every thing to the clear and simple definition of reason and of God.

but

God himself is reason. His service is not a dark and mysteriousa “reasonable service," and the call he gives to mankind, is not to come and submit reason to blind faith, but to "come and reason toge

ther with him." The apostles were truly reasonable men, exhorting their hearers to be always ready with a reason for the hope that was in them, and to prove all things, holding fast that which was good.

66

A doctrine of the Holy Book may be beyond reason, for reason can only argue from known facts; but it can never, if a doctrine of the Scriptures, be contrary to reason, for whatever is contrary to reason is contrary to God. The Reviewer of the Alloa Tract for the Times," starts his objections by affirming that "the fundamental error of the whole, is the singular definition of Divine Justice given or adhered to by the Tractarian. Divine Justice,' he says, 'is Divine Love directed by Divine Wisdom;'" and as a consequence of this definition he affirms "that God does not inflict punishment on any man."

Now if this be a "fundamental error," it is, thank God, an error of the Scriptures themselves, which declare most emphatically that "God is Love;" not merely loving, but love in the very essence of his nature ; that is, He is loving unto EVERY man, and "his tender mercies are over ALL his works." "He hateth nothing that he hath made.” “He desires not the death of a sinner," but wishes him to "turn and live." Now if God be loving to EVERY man-merciful to ALL men-hates NONE and yet is JUST to all; it is as plain as light can make it, that his justice to all is in perfect agreement with his love to all. So much for the Reviewer's "Fundamental Error."*

It is not, however, at all wonderful that the Reviewer, who doubtless reposes under the "cold shade" of Calvinistic orthodoxy, should split upon the rock "GOD IS LOVE;" for nothing can be more opposite than Divine Love and the tender mercies of Calvin.

The Bible declares that God loves ALL.

creed, "he only loves a few."

"Nay," says the Reviewer's

The Scriptures declare that "God hateth nothing he has made." 'Hold," says modern orthodoxy, "he hateth all who are not elect." The Bible declares that "God willeth not the death of a sinner." "Ay," says the Confession of Faith, "but that only means an elect sinner, for he hath willed and decreed the perdition of the reprobate, long before they were born."

The Bible declares that

God is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works."" Away with such Arminian Latitudinarianism!" shouts the organ of modern orthodoxy. 'He watches over the greater part only that he may be glorified in their damnation." No marvel that

* 66 "They to whom God is the Almighty rather than the heavenly Father, do not understand that the highest ideal of justice is perfect and universal love. They cannot perceive this; for both spiritually and naturally water never rises above the level of its source."-Mrs. Child.

a follower of this orthodoxy should repudiate the idea of Love entering into Divine Justice.

66

But the Reviewer's logic is about as correct as his love and orthodoxy are melting. In a jumble of phrases," to use his own beautiful language, he tries to prove that if justice result from love and wisdom, love, wisdom, and justice, must mean one and the same thing.

Why, Gotham must have parted with its wise men! they have surely migrated to Clackmanan! and so if justice result from love and wisdom, love, wisdom, and justice, must mean one and the same thing. What a splendid specimen is this of critical acumen ! Water results from the union of hydrogen and oxygen, therefore hydrogen, oxygen, and water, are one and the same thing. Faith is the result of hearing the word of God; ergo, faith, hearing, and the word of God, are one and the same thing. Splendid logician! Profound reasoner! Admirable critic!

The Reviewer seems to imagine that if suffering be the lot of the wicked in the next world, and if they are for ever excluded from the lot of the blessed, the idea that God does not inflict punishment must necessarily be false, and that it "affords a lever by which the whole system is overthrown, and that too out of his (the Tractarian's) own mouth." Passing over the "jumble" of figures, and the singular idea of a lever coming out of a mouth to overturn a system, let us examine the matter seriously.

66

Punishment is the lot of the wicked, but does God inflict that punishment? Is he at the same time a being of unutterable love and of remorseless cruelty? If it be a truth as set forth in the Bible, I am the Lord, I change not, therefore ye sons of men are not consumed," shall man say he does change, and convert the words, O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself," into "O Israel, I will punish and destroy thee"? If the Reviewer does not mean to ascribe to the Supreme a double mind, from whence, let us inquire, does punishment arise? Undoubtedly from man himself. From his own evils. He has unfitted himself for heaven, and hence he cannot enter it. His will, his wishes, his hopes, his loves, his pursuits, are all opposed to heaven, and hence he cannot enter it. It is no place for him, nor could he be happy if admitted there. Without a change of heart, a change of place can never produce happiness. The sufferings of the wicked arise from themselves, not from God. "He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked." His pleasure is in “the death of his saints." He delights not in the misery of his creatures, nor does he sit to all eternity, blowing up the flames and exulting in the torments of the damned. The wicked are punished with banishment "from the presence of the Lord,"

but it is because they cannot exist in his presence-because "His presence is not their place, and they go to that place which they have fitted themselves for, and which is directly called "their own." They love darkness, and hate the light. They love evil, and hate the good, and because God is both love and wisdom, or because he is both goodness and light, they hate him; they love evil, and with the evil they make up their bed in hell. In all this there is nothing of vindictive fury or anger; nothing but what perfectly harmonizes with the will of God to save.

But this is not the thing which excites the Reviewer's greatest anger; there is something left behind, namely, that "the Tractarian denies the substitutory character of Christ's death." Here is a jumble of words with a witness, and much is it to be doubted whether all his readers understand what he means by substitutory sufferings," or a substitutory death." We will try to inform them, and in so doing follow the orthodoxy of the Scottish Church.

66

66

"God created man: but he did so with the determination that man should fall. Hence the devil seduced him, and he fell. He, i. e. God, then, (in accordance with a decree passed long before and in eternity) condemned, not only the man, but all his race, to eternal fire.”

Yet besides this general decree, there is a secret one. (We stop not to inquire how the Orthodox became acquainted with the secret, the finite thus fathoming the INFINITE.) This secret decree is :-"That a certain number of individuals shall be saved, do what they may, and make heaven resound with Hallelujahs' to free grace; and that the rest shall be passed by as vessels of dishonour, and be thrust into eternal torment, to the praise of the vindictive justice of God."

Kind reader, pause a moment to contemplate this vindictive justice, and, lest you should think we have overstated the doctrine, consult the "Confession of Faith," and you will then acknowledge that we have quoted within the vengeance of this terrible justice: but we say pause awhile, and see the consequences to which this doctrine leads.

The Judge predetermines man shall commit crime; provides a tempter who succeeds but too well in his unholy work. The Judge then condemns the criminal for what he had predetermined he should commit, and then praises his own justice and righteousness. Can any thing be more horrible,-more contrary to the long-suffering of that Being who pathetically exclaims, "O that there were such a heart within them, that they might fear me always and keep my commandments, that it might be well with them! When shall it once be?" Dear reader, respond to the call of thy beneficent Redeemer, and leave the hideous doctrine of Calvinistic decrees to return to the dark regions