bable that one day or other it will strike you that what I have said is in absolute want of numerous corrections, alterations, and a copious errata; nay, perhaps, though some of my ideas should have seemed to you partly satisfactory, perhaps, I say, will you think, from better information that I wish you, that the whole of my notions is but a mean and contemptible essay.

ON THE THIRD QUESTION.

Does the Sacred History speak of this Earth in some places, and of an unknown Earth in others; or does it speak every where, but of an Earth different from this?

Theophila, I cannot answer positively this question, having heard nothing certain on the subject: I can only say that I am much inclined to believe that the Holy Writings speak no where of this visible earth, but every where of another. No doubt you feel that an opinion so different from that of a vast number of persons entitled to our respect, ought not to be received before having been most scrupulously examined and inquired into. It is what I sincerely wish you would do, what I entreat you to do, and what I hope you will do, to avoid being led astray by me; and that the conclusion you will come to respecting the question I now lay before you, be your own, entirely your own, and by no means a suggestion of mine.

may

In speaking on the first question, I have quoted to you a great many verses that seem to me inapplicable to this earth, with a view to call your attention to certain

passages on which I have thought it would be useful to you to meditate; as it might prove a kind of step from the possible errors of this world to the truths of the Word of God, and bring you to suspect that it may refer to another earth, desirable to know. In answer to the second question, I have mentioned the way that I understand most of those verses, and the Scriptural earth or world. I have done it, not to guide you, which I could not presume, not knowing whether I am correct, or not; but merely to invite you to discuss the way that the Bible is understood in general, and to examine whether it would not be more satisfactory to understand it otherwise, all through. If you have resolved to inquire seriously into it, I rejoice at your determination, and request you will discard from your mind my questionable notions, and hold fast to the Sacred History, as it is in it alone that you are to look for true information. It is from it, from the Divine Spirit who dwells in it, and not from the most imperfect one that is in me, that you may learn what will be good and beneficial to you. I hope that in searching into it, you will perceive that the literal sense, I mean the natural, vulgar sense that is understood in this world, (for I am ready to admit that the Scripture has a literal sense, which, in my opinion, is the philosophical, which I take for the letter of the Scripture, the letter that kills the soul who prefers it to the spirit) that the literal sense, I say, is quite inadmissible in many places; that the philosophical and the spiritual would be preferable; and that by applying either of them every where, according as the passage refers to the earth or to the heaven, the Holy Writings would seem more intelligible, and perfectly connected

and consistent in every part: which I apprehend will never appear to you such, as long as, following the custom of this world, you will suppose that this or that verse ought to be understood spiritually, and the next literally; running continually the risk of being mistaken.

But, Theophila, though you may receive from a new study of the Bible, an intelligence of some passages that might please you better than that in which you have been brought up, and might tend to reconcile you with my notions, still it is likely to me that my opinion that it speaks no where of this visible earth, will for a time meet with great objections in your mind. From our ignorance, in general, of the hidden meaning of the things that are mentioned in the Sacred Writings, of which we have not as yet the dictionary; and from the want of a sufficient authority to convince us that they do not treat of what we see daily, it is, no doubt, difficult to admit readily that no where they allude to our skies, our sun, moon and stars; to our earth, dry land, and water, trees and plants, fishes, fowls, beasts, cattle and creeping things; to our seas, rivers, lakes, pools, fountains, brooks, springs and wells, clouds and dew; to our mountains, hills, valleys and plains; to our stones of all kinds; neither to our gold, silver, brass, and iron; to our thunder, fire, snow, hail, winds and tempests; nor to our Egypt, Assyria, deserts, Babylon, Cyrus, Judea, Jerusalem, Rome, Malta, &c.; neither to such degenerate creatures as our men, women and children, our living and our dead, &c.; in short, to nothing that is visible to us, and to which we are told from our childhood that the Scripture refers. I am aware that to support that deep-rooted opinion the New Testament has

been generally offered as a proof that the circumstances foretold in the Old, have happened literally on this earth. Civil history, and numerous stories, which are given to us for well authenticated, irrefutable traditions, have been likewise brought forth to countenance the customary belief that this world is spoken of in the Sacred Books: so that to have the least doubt about it, must appear quite extravagant and insane. I confess all that; yet I have been told such things, that I cannot any longer entertain the notions that have been commonly received on the subject: and as I think it important for you to ascertain, as near as you can, whether they are as correct as they seem to be; important so far that if it should be found out that they are erroneous, then any religious system that is partly founded on them, cannot be true in every respect, I invite you again to discuss the general opinion as well as mine, cautiously and impartially.

I am so little acquainted with the old books that are brought forward by the denominated Christians in support of their systems, that I cannot attempt to speak of them; but I may say something of the works of Flavius Josephus, which I have read partly. In the preface of the translation, that was published in 1777, in numbers, by Ebenezer Thompson, D.D. and William Charles Price, LL.D. I have remarked the following passage. "The Sacred Scriptures excepted, there are no writings "extant of equal authority with those of Flavius Jo

66

sephus; nor any which exhibit such incontestible "evidence of the truths of Christianity." As Josephus does not speak of the doctrine of Christ, I imagine that by "the truths of Christianity," the editors have only