inspiration, as no necessity appears for it, merely to give an account of what one has seen and heard: while

"venly-instructed scribe, not to reveal to men any new will or word of "God, for that was not wanted, but to lead mankind to a right un"derstanding of the old word, which, through the misinterpretations "of men, had been perverted and corrupted. It is true, in some of "his spiritual intercourses, the author takes occasion to relate the "discourse of the angels; but this occurs so rarely, and, compared "with the whole of his writings, makes so small a portion of them, "that the Abbé must have strangely forgotten himself, or the truth, "when he inserted in his charge the word always. It is further to "be observed, that when we read of what the angels speak, which is

very rare, their discourse is never pressed with the authority of a "command, intended for the direction of life, but only in the way of "information respecting the invisible realities of that world which "they inhabit, and which they were desirous to make known unto men."

Without entering into a minute discussion of that paragraph, I shall only say that it appears to me, from Mr. Clowes's words, that almost the whole of Swedenborg's works may be considered either as his own opinions, or as information which he has received from revelations or by inspiration. If he wrote from revelations, or by inspiration, it may be asked, who were the agents of either, whether in a visible way, whether in an invisible? Were they superior spirits, who always revealed to him, or inspired him with, the truth? Were they spirits of the middle hierarchies, whose communications were measured to the imperfect state of his mind, and varied according to the degrees of knowledge he was led through, and according to his ability to bear greater informations? Were they inferior spirits by whom he was in danger of being misled? Ignorant as I am of his works, may I be allowed to add these other questions :-Is there any proof that he has perfectly understood the spiritual language of angels, and has he always expressed himself in a way intelligible to his readers? I am disposed to doubt it.

If most of what he says ought to be considered only as opinions of his, please to remember that he was a man, a poor mortal, or rather, Scripturally speaking, one of the dead (Matt. 8. 22); and that, be

to speak of things of which we can have no positive knowledge, there is an absolute need of the inspiration of the Creator of all things. For my part, were I to say that any of the books that are generally considered as parts of the Old and of the New Testaments, or any part of them, is a relation of facts that have been witnessed on this earth by such or such person who wrote it, I should be afraid of being taxed with denying that it was given by the inspiration of God, with denying altogether that it is His Word, and with assimilating it, in imitation of the Jews, with the traditions of men: which would tend to lessen the faith in it, as no human record, of some extent, can be entirely depended upon; let the writer be ever so pious.

With the belief that the Scripture had emanated from the Deity, the converted Jews ought to have been impressed with the certainty that it speaks of different things from those alluded to in the books of men; of

fore his notions be admitted, they ought to be tried, in obedience to the injunctions in 1 Thess. 5. 21, and 1 John, 4. 1.

In the defence of the New Church I have particularly remarked, p. 241, Mr. Hindmarsh's following note. "The creation spoken of "in the first chapter of Genesis, does not at all allude to the creation "of the visible universe, but solely to the regeneration of man, as may "be seen abundantly proved by Emmanuel Swedenborg, in his Ar66 cana Coelestia." If Swedenborg has proved it to the satisfaction of his readers, I think they may conclude that the earth spoken of in the first verse of the Scripture is not this visible one, and as the Sacred Writings speak no where else of the past creation of another earth, it seems to rae that they may infer, also, that in no place they allude to this, and to what belongs to it; but rather to the world which God sets in the heart of men; and which must be overcome for their regeneration.

things important for the soul, for the inward man, who, by sin, has ceased to be image and likeness of his Creator; of things able to make one wise unto salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus; of things profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3. 15, 16). Perceiving that it relates to the soul (Job, 32. 8), as it appears to me from the numerous passages in which she is mentioned, they might have inferred that it was intended for her regeneration, for her resurrection from the state of spiritual death; and they ought to have endeavoured to apply it to themselves: which might have brought them to suspect the possibility of finding in the Sacred History a part or a hint of their own soul's history. For instance, in the account of the creation, which they had supposed to refer to a single individual, I think it might have been of service to them to examine whether it could not, and did not, relate to themselves as well as to that creature; which I believe may be countenanced by the following verses, which seem to hint at a previous existence of every one of us. Male and female created He them (Gen. 1. 27). And God blessed them, and said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply (28), male and female created He them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created (5. 2). The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done, is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun (Eccl. 1. 9). Is there any thing It hath been al

whereof it may be said, this is new? ready of old time, which was before us (10). There is no remembrance of former things (11). That which has been, is now; and that which is to be, hath already

been; and God requireth that which is past (3. 15). Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been (4. 3). Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female (Matt. 19. 4; Mark, 10. 6)? For we brought nothing into this world (1 Tim. 6. 7). I understand not these last words as referring to this visible world, but to the Scriptural, and to a previous existence of the soul, before she arrive into that unknown world, wherein she brings nothing, and from which she can carry nothing out (Psalm 49. 17), no more than we can from this present emblematical world. I believe, Theophila, you will find some other verses in confirmation of the probability of a former state, very superior to this; and that, in meditating upon it, several instructive and satisfying consequences will occur to your mind.

In the fall of man, as well as in his creation, the early converts might have suspected that the Scriptures alluded to their own disobedience; and inferred that it was on account of their own faults in a past life, that in this they were in a degenerate condition; which I think it was wrong to impute to the sin of any creature, though the offence of one was by the will of God, the means by which all became sinners; and so death passed upon all men, and the spirit of error or death reigned in every heart, for that all have sinned: Rom. 5. 12, which must have taken place in an antecedent world, for it cannot be said of infants in this that they have sinned. Likewise in reading the process of the regeneration of man, by applying it to themselves, they might have followed him with great benefit for their soul, through all the different states and transitions of his, such as Canaan, Egypt,

the wilderness, the promised land, Babylon, Zion, Jerusalem, &c. &c.; wherein I understand that the first man, the first in every sense of the word,-appears under various names that show his progressive degrees of knowledge, regeneration, and power: first, as Adam, afterwards, perhaps, as Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, and Joseph, the just and charitable man. I think the same might be said of the Woman, of the Son of Man, of the Apostles and others; whose names or titles in the Scripture seem to me to change in proportion as they advance into the knowledge of the truth, Gen. 2. 23.-3. 20.-17. 5.—32. 28.-36. 1, 43.-41. 38, 45. Matt. 11. 13, 14.-17. 10, 13.-27. 17. Mark, 3. 16, 17. Luke, 1. 31, 32. John, 1. 42. The Acts, 1. 23. -11. 26.-12. 25.-13. 9. Rev. 2. 17.

In reading of the Scriptural Egypt, why should I not inquire within myself, whether my soul is not in a state something similar to that of the children of Israel, the miserable slave of as evil a spirit as the spirit Pharaoh, which oppresses her, and keeps her in the bondage of its false notions? Why would she not, like the people of God, cry to the Lord, and pray Him to send her a deliverer? Is He not the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long suffering and abundant in goodness and in truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin; visiting (out of pity,) the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation, (to eradicate it from their hearts)? Exo. 34. 6, 7. Why would not my soul seek in the commandments of God, in Christ's precepts, and in Moses's ordinances, the sure way by which she could