truthfulness of every thing which was spoken or written by the Bible authors? Why do they profess to believe that Constantine, and his convocation of Priests and bench of Bishops, were perfectly correct in deciding what combination of books we should regard as holy? Why do the Turks believe that Mohammed revealed the high and holy truths of Heaven? Why do Mormons believe in the perfect and entire infallibility of the revealments of Joseph Smith? Why do Shakers place their confidence in, and stake their lives and all their personal and temporal interests upon, the infallible truthfulness of Mother Ann's dispensation and revealments? Why do the receivers and disciples of "the doctrines of the New Church," as revealed by Swedenborg, believe that their self-proclaimed prophet was made the subject of supernatural and infallible revelations of religious truths--whose utterances are to be received as the voice of God to man? Again I ask, why do the followers of these respective religious chieftains,-who are acknowledged to have been human beings, subject to all the frailties and weaknesses common to other members of humanity,-why do their disciples, in view of all this conceded individual imperfection, believe in the unqualified infallibility of their utterances? Simply, because they adopt the professions of those chieftains, that "the Lord" was their especial guardian, and, consequently, that whatever they did, or wrote, must necessarily be regarded as unequivocally perfect.

And yet, the followers of all these religious masters indulge themselves in what they call reasoning; this is the manifest absurdity of all minds who have sold themselves, physically and spiritually, to the promulgation of some particular system of religion. It is an absurdity to exercise your reasoning faculties upon that which you believe to be infallible. believe to be infallible. If you are told, in 2 Kings ii. 11, that Elijah was seen going physically to heaven in a chariot of fire,--what do you say? Or, if you are told by Joshua, x. 13, that the sun stood still in order to pro

long a battle, what do you say? Or, if you read, in Isaiah, xxxviii. 8, that the sun was seen going backward,-what do you say? If you should read in those sacred records that it was a common thing to see stones dance, trees fly, and dead animals sing,--what would you say? Would you reason upon the probability or possibility of such occurrences? Nay; for, believing those accounts to be the utterances of Jehovah-the direct infallible revelations of "the Lord" through his favorite attorneys,—you will simply resign your reason; your powers of energetic and harmonious thought, your divinely inherited powers of comprehension, and say—“Well it is above my comprehension, BUT IT MUST BE so!" Again: suppose you accept the assumptions of Swedenborg that he was "led by the Lord;" that his knowledge was divine, supernatural, infallible-what would you say to any absurdity that he might utter? You would say: "Although I do not fully understand it, it must be so nevertheless!" Suppose, for example, that you should turn to one of his works, entitled "Divine Love and Wisdom," and read an old Chaldeanic idea of the origination of the animated world, which Swedenborg has synopticized in this manner:-"All poisonous serpents, scorpions, crocodiles, dragons, tigers, wolves, foxes, swine, owls, rats, mice, locusts, frogs, bats, spiders, flies, drones, moths, lice, mites; and all malignant, virulent, and poisonous herbs; did not derive their origin from 'the Lord,' neither were they created from the beginning, neither did they originate from nature, by her sun, BUT THEY ARE ALL FROM HELL. I say, suppose you should read this, while accepting the author as led by the Lord," and hence saved from the commission of error— what would you say? Unquestionably, you would say, what Christians say constantly concerning the Apocalypse of John, “that it is entirely above your comprehension, but it must be true notwithstanding."

All attempt at reasoning on matters which are received as in

fallibly uttered, is manifestly absurd and even farcical. True, the high-born faculty of reason may be permitted to step majestically upon the eternal rounds of a theological tread-mill; or it may be most devoutly sold to some religious chieftain for the purpose of performing the functions of a menial in the promulgation of certain tenets; and it may be allowed to exhibit in the theological circle, which is eternally marked out and defined for the devotee, as much genius, as much consecutive reasoning, as much close logic-sound judgment and deduction-as much method, coolness, sobriety, dignity, symmetrical thought and harmony of proportions—as much penetration and logical analysis, as the disciple is pleased and able to employ; but, after all, what does all this pyrotechnical manifestation of talent amount to in the issue? Nothing! absolutely nothing more, than the splendid discharge of the functions of a menial to some fixed theological system and standard of infallibility; to which Reason is devoted and laboring in absolute bondage!

Men first accept, without reason, the author and the foundations of a system of moral philosophy; then they show a vast amount of logical consistency and profound reasoning. It is not the existence of any false logic subsequent to the acceptation of a religious system that I complain of; but the total absence of the dictations of the faculty of reason, when the system is first received. You seldom hear a Christian ask-"Is the foundation of my religion reliable? Did man actually fall? Was he, in fact, more perfect in the beginning than he now is? Did Moses write Genesis? Did Christ die as a martyr for his opinions? Or, did he suffer for me, to satisfy the justice of his heavenly Father which had been infringed upon by mankind, and thereby opened a door for human salvation? I say, you seldom hear Christians ask such questions. But why do they not? Because they dare not,-yea, they are so accustomed to mental slavery that they dare not,-exercise a particle of reason on the soundness of the foundations of their faith. But after the soul

is chained to a theological system-after it is sold into slavery, and incarcerated in a spacious prison, with an extensive yard but insurmountable` walls-then the Reason-principle is allowed some healthy exercise in tilling the ground; keeping up the fences; repairing breakages; handing water to those who thirst for it; and in maintaining an attractive and harmonious external appearance in order to induce travelers and wayfaring men to take up their abode in their magnificent mental slavery institution. Hence, subsequently to the reception of a religious system, you always see the bondmen very busy in "harmonizing Genesis with Revelation ;" and commentaries succeed commentaries; notes on the Gospels succeed sermons; and, then, there are others, who, knowing the proverbial ignorance of laymen on points of historical differences and scientific antagonisms, in connection with the professions of the infallible system of religious faith, are very expert in their show of reason in the efforts to "harmonize Nature with Revelation !" And so, the bondmen exercise their understandings! Verily, in this position, the sublime faculty of REASON is, as a menial in the house of a religious chieftain, bold and dignified in the exhibition of its powers within certain fixed limits; but, beyond those confines, it were dangerous to venture!

Upon an interior examination, I find the most vigorous and talented minds frequently deceived as to the extent to which they think they exercise their reason. Especially is this true of those who have simply changed from one set of theological tenets to another. For instance, "upon the most rigid inquiry," says Professor Bush,* "I am satisfied that Swedenborg's system is true. When candidly surveyed, it answers all the demands of my intellect and my heart. It commends itself to my best reason, as given of God and worthy of all acceptation; and so believing, I dare not confer

* See page v. of the "Introduction" to the Memorabilia of Swedenborg, edited by Professor George Bush.

with flesh and blood!" Now what does all this mean? or, rather, what does it demonstrate? Most conclusively, it shows that this disciple of the Swedish seer had never once analyzed the ground elements of his faith in the miraculous and supernatural. He never asked himself whether the foundation of Swedenborg's theology was a veritable record of infallible Truths. Before he could make a most rigid inquiry;" before he could satisfy his "best reason" that "Swedenborg's system is true;" it was certainly first indispensably necessary to analyze the basis of Swedenborg's complicated superstructure, viz., the Primitive History! But did he do this? Nay; his mind was all ready for the acceptation of the new seed. His faith in the infallible; in the absolutely supernatural; in the miraculous; had not experienced or suffered the least disturbance. Hence by a "most rigid inquiry" he means, not a strictly logical and profound analysis into the beginning principles of his theological faith-into the basis of the Word, upon which Swedenborg's system stands-but, he means, that he examined Swedenborg's disclosures with strict reference to their coincidence with the "letter and the spirit" of the Word. Here is no philosophical penetration -no deep analysis—no far-reaching psychological foresight or research; but it is all subsequent reasoning! Again, this talented disciple of Swedenborg says "If Swedenborg has uttered truth relative to the Spiritual World, it is because God enabled him to do it." Here the supernatural doctrine is accepted totally. "It is a truth," he says, " entirely transcending the reach of the native faculties of man." That is to say, no human being can see, think, or write, such truths unless he be "led by the Lord," and transcendently illuminated by the influx of the Supernal Spirit.

But here the question arises-how could this disciple of the Swedish seer, satisfy his "best reason"-supply "all the demands" of his "intellect and heart"-all "the central convictions" of his soul-by a "most rigid inquiry" into a system of truth which is