McKnight, or Clark can, and can also as easily decide upon the consistency or rectitude of all biblical statements. What position, then, are you to take, when you read a positive contradiction? Timothy asserts that the Lord "willeth that all men should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved;" but does he "will" all men to know the truth and be saved, when he announces his most positive and settled determination, through the same book, that he will -yea, stronger than this, that he "shall-send them strong delusion," (that is, a positive psychological, irresistible influence,) “that they might believe a lie," and, consequently, have their damnation made positively certain by the same Lord who desires, and wills it, that all should know the Truth and be saved? I know it is claimed that this is to be done, very generously and mercifully by the Lord, in order to test the soundness of those who think themselves already among “the elect;" but this thought is so insulting to the goodness, omniscience, and omnipotence of the Living God, that I stop not to descant upon a proposition so profoundly unreasonable and irreligious.

But let me again ask you-" What position will you take when you read these positive contradictions in a volume which is venerated by you as the plenum of celestial and infallible Truth ?" Your reply is anticipated. You have accepted the foundation without a question; your heart and your intellect believe in a perfect and infinite God without consulting your infallible revelation; but, when you do consult the household God, and read the doctrine, that God is not infinite nor perfect; that he was seen locally; that he frequently manifested anger and furious passion; that he made his alledged prophets and apostles reveal contradictory things concerning facts and principles,-I say, when you consult these things, what do you think? Most distinctly you confess,----“ I do not understand these supernatural mysteries-these surpassing arcana of the great triune God-but they must be true notwithstanding!"

That is to say, you have sold yourself to an incomprehensible faith, hence you suspect yourself-your reason, intuitions, instincts, soul; and can say, with Professor Bush, that, "Believing so, I dare not confer with flesh and blood." If I have not anticipated your replies correctly, or the actual foundations of your faith in the supernatural and miraculous, then I desire to be rectified in these particulars to the end that the human mind may be still better comprehended. A mind, which is thus believing in the infallibility of any revelation, is, most positively and unequivocally, psychologized by a religious faith to begin with; then he is psycho-sympathetically magnetized by the thoughts of the author, or authors, of his faith; so that he begins to imagine that his "heart," his "intellect," and the 66 central" intuitions of his soul are all "convinced" of a faith which is "beyond the reach of the native faculties of man ;" and, then, in the exercise of his "best reason," he is in the transition state between misdirection and liberty, between bondage and freedom, between using the eyes of his leader and the proper use of his own powers of discernment!

From the foregoing, let it not be inferred that I am creating a question as to Swedenborg's versatility of talent, his veracity, or spiritual illumination. The reality of his intercourse with the spiritual world I am not permitted to doubt. But the great and paramount question to be established in regard to Swedenborg, and in regard to every other champion or representative of supernaturalism, is this: "Can there be any pure reasoning upon a supernatural or irrational basis?" If there can not be, then we are compelled to account psychologically, or upon ontological principles, for this universal fallacy or faith among mankind. To give this explanation, the case of Baron Swedenborg was selected as the best modern type or example of supernaturalistic faith, accompanied by the semblance of philosophical reasoning. And Professor Bush was chosen also as an illustration of the Transition State, in which the

mind is neither so free, nor so able to reason, as when the individual is in the more advanced conditions, hereafter to be considered. The supernatural system of faith must be analyzed. And who among you can say, but that Swedenborg's mission is not so indissolubly connected with the spiritual or mystical coming of the Lord, as with the great question of naturalism and supernaturalism, which seems to press this Age for a thorough and perfect solution? It is oming to be seen that social improvement depends very much. upon a rational verdict.

Friends, there is a new philosophy in the world! There is a new covenant of Man with Reason! It is not the resurrection of an old scheme, born in Greece and laid to sleep in the lap of Rome, and now exhumed under a new title and differently recommended. Nay; but it is a stupendous development of God's Truth through the ten thousand avenues of Nature and humanity,—a deep, strong, heavenly strain of music which is yet destined to lead human souls into dependent groups around one common center of harmonious sympathy. There is a new-born thought on the altar of the human heart-a toleration, and genial goodness, breathing like the warmth of a universal spring over the tender buds and unfolding sensibilities of man's immortal soul !

LECTURE XV.

THE TRANSITION STATE OF MIND, AS DEVELOPED

AMONG RELIGIOUS

CHIEFTAINS.

THOSE Who heard the discourse on last Sabbath evening, will doubtless remember the presentation of certain passages of the Primitive History, which were positively contradictory in themselves, both in point of letter and internal signification. And there were two conclusions, legitimately developed from the premises, which were frequently urged upon your attention; first, that there can not possibly be any pure reasoning upon an admitted basis of supernaturalism; in other words, upon a foundation, which is lost in the dark depths of incomprehensibility; second, that the contradictions referred to,-which were exceedingly weak and unforcible when compared with many others contained in the same book,-demonstrate that those accounts originated solely and entirely with human beings.

These positions are very distinct and easily comprehended. But the question is-Are they true? This interrogation was mainly answered in the preceding lecture; wherein it was shown, that he who takes for granted the professions of any religious chieftain, that he is a particular favorite of the Most High, and especially called to reveal infallible doctrines, has virtually resigned his mind to the government of another. Therefore, that he who placed himself in such a position had trammeled his own soul, and chained his reason to a theological system, and hence was free to exercise his understanding only within certain well-defined limitations. And it was further shown, that an infallible revelation must not contain con

tradictions, or inconsistencies in point of fact or principle; but, inasmuch as the system under investigation was proved to contain those evidences which demonstrated its fallacious and imperfect character, it was consequently concluded that the work is wholly and unqualifiedly referable to the operations of the human mind.

This position is very comprehensive and essentially important. It throws a great responsibility upon the source of my impressions,— which I am impressed to cheerfully acknowledge and accept,-because, as you will very readily perceive, there is a stupendous amount of explanation demanded from me on all sides, and which I must be expected to furnish to those who conceive their faith, in the miraculous and supernatural, mortally injured by the assertions made and positions taken.

For example, I must explain to the Turks how Mohammed received and wrote his religion, i. e., if I repudiate the doctrine that he was infallible and supernaturally inspired; the same explanation is demanded by Christians concerning the prophetical and other writings of their so-called infallible penmen; the same explanation is demanded by the Shakers, who regard, most devoutly, the system of faith and social government which rests upon the Bible and upon the equally infallible allegations of their female leader; the same explanation is demanded by the followers of Joseph Smith, who was esteemed as the express agent of " the Lord" in the revealment of an additional amount of infallible truth, beginning where the Bible leaves off, and continuing the narrations of supernatural histories and doctrines up to the present time-thus converting all past revelations into the Mormon system of faith; and lastly, and more positively and peremptorily than all the other sects, the followers of Swedenborg demand an explanation of his transcendental revelations and profound unfoldings of the literal, spiritual, and celestial senses or significations of the Word.

But why do these different sects require these explanations?