carious, all uncertain; 3. The whole hypothesis has a dangerous tendency. It naturally leads men off from plain practical religion, and fills them with the knowledge that puffeth up, instead of the love that edifieth; and, 4. It is often flatly contradictory to Scripture, to reason, and to itself.

But over and above this superfluous, uncertain, dangerous, irrational, and unscriptural philosophy, have not you lately grieved many who are not strangers to the spirit of prayer or love, by advancing tenets in religion, some of which they think are unsupported by Scripture, some even repugnant to it? Allow me, Sir, first to touch upon your philosophy, and then to speak freely concerning these.

I. As to your philosophy, the main of your theory respects, 1. Things antecedent to the creation; 2. The creation itself; 3. Adam in Paradise; 4. The fall of man.

I do not undertake formally to refute what you have asserted on any of these heads. I dare not: I cannot answer either to God or

man such an employment of my time. I shall only give a sketch of this strange system, and ask a few obvious questions.

And, 1. Of the things antecedent to the creation.

*** All that can be conceived is God, or nature, or creature."t Is nature created, or not created? It must be one or the other: for there is no medium. If not created, is it not God? If created, is it not a creature? How then can there be three, God, nature, and creature? Since nature must coincide either with God or crea

ture.

66

Nature is in itself a hungry, wrathful fire of life."-" Nature is and can be only a desire. Desire is the very being of nature."§ "Nature is only a desire, because it is for the sake of something else. Nature is only a torment; because it cannot help itself to that which it wants."|| "Nature is the outward manifestation of the invisible glories of God." ¶

Is not the last of these definitions contradictory to all that precede? -If desire is the very being of nature; if it is a torment, a hungry wrathful fire: how is it "the outward manifestation of the invisible glories of God?" Nature as well as God is antecedent to all creatures. “There is an eternal nature, as universal and as unlimited as God."It Is then nature God? Or are there two eternal, universal, infinite beings?

"Nothing is before eternal nature but God." "Nothing but ?" Is any thing before that which is eternal ?-But how is this grand account of nature consistent with what you say elsewhere?

"Nature, and darkness, and self, are but three different expressions for one and the same thing."§§ "Nature has all evil and no evil in it." Yea,|||| "Nature, self, or darkness, has not only no evil in it, but is the only ground of all good." O rare darkness!

“Nature has seven chief properties, and can have neither more nor

* Mr. Law's words are enclosed all along in inverted commas. † Spirit of Prayer, P. II. p. 33. Ibid. p. 34.

¶ P. II. p. 62. **P. 59. tt P. 64. ‡‡ Ibid.

§ Sp. of Love, P. I. p. 20. P. 34. §§ P. 181. P. 192.

less, because it is a birth from the Deity in nature."

66

For God is Is not this flat

(Is nature a birth from the Deity in nature? Is this sense? If it be, what kind of proof is it? Is it not ignotum per æque ignotum ?) tri-une and nature is tri-une." ("Nature is tri-une." begging the question?) "And hence arise properties, three and And that which brings three." (Nay, why not nine and nine?)

these three and three into union is another property." Why so? Is it not rather the will Why may it not be two, or five, or nine?

and power of God?

66

The three first properties of nature are the whole essence of that desire, which is, and is called nature." (p. 69.) How? Are the properties of a thing the same as the essence of it? What confusion is this! But if they were, can a part of its properties be the whole essence of it?

"The three first properties of nature are attraction, resistance, and whirling. In these three properties of the desire, you see the reason of the three great laws of matter and motion, and need not be told, that Sir Isaac ploughed with Jacob Behmen's heifer." (p. 37.) Just as much as Milton ploughed with Francis Quarles's heifer.

And how

How does it appear, that these are any of the properties of nature? If you mean by nature any thing distinct from matter? are they the properties of desire? What a jumbling of dissonant no

tions is here!

66

The

"The fourth property," (you affirm, not prove.) "is called fire: the fifth the form of light and love." (What do you mean by the form of love? Are light and love one and the same thing?) sixth, sound or understanding." (Are then sound and understanding the same thing?) "The seventh, a life of triumphing joy.” (p. 58.) Is then a life of triumphing joy, "that which brings the three and three properties into union?" If so, how can it be "the result of that union?" Do these things hang together?

To conclude this head. You say, "attraction is an incessant working of three contrary properties, drawing, resisting, and whirling!" (p. 200.) That is in plain terms, (a discovery worthy of Jacob Behmen, and yet not borrowed by Sir Isaac !) Drawing is incessant drawing, resistance, and whirling."

II. Of the creation :

66

You put these words, with many more equally important, into the mouth of God himself!

66

Angels first inhabited the region which is now taken up by the sun and the planets that move round him. It was then all a glassy sea, in which perpetual scenes of light and glory were ever rising and changing in obedience to their call. Hence they fancied they had infinite power, and resolved to abjure all submission to God. In that moment they were whirled down into their own dark, fiery, working powers. And in that moment the glassy sea, by the wrathful workings of these spirits, was broke in pieces, and became a chaos

of fire and wrath, thickness, and darkness." Sp. of Prayer, P. I. p. 14, &c.

I would inquire upon this, 1. Is it well for a man to take such liberty with the Most High God? 2. Is not this being immeasurably 'wise above that which is written? Wiser than all the Prophets and all the Apostles put together? 3. How can any thing of this be proved? Why thus: "Darkness was upon the face of the deep.' What can this mean, but that the fall of angels brought desolation into the very place of this world?" P. II. p. 49. What a proof!

Secondly, "The Scripture shows, that the Spirit of God entering into this darkness," (that is, into the very place where Satan reigned before,) "brought forth a new world." p. 50.

Where does it show that this darkness was the place where Satan reigned? I cannot find it in my Bible.

Thirdly, "How could the Devil be called, The Prince of this world,' if it was not once his own kingdom?" (ibid.) May he not be so called, because he now reigns therein? Is he not now the ruler of the darkness,' or wickedness, of this world?'

Fourthly, "Had it not been their own kingdom, the devils could have no power here. This may pass for a demonstration, That this is the very place in which the angels fell." p. 51. I doubt, it will not pass. Cannot God permit Satan to exert his power, wherever it pleaseth him?

Hitherto then we have not a grain of sound proof. Yet you pronounce with all peremptoriness, The grounds of true religion cannot be truly known but by going so far back as this fall of angels." p. 37, 38. Cannot? Positively, cannot? How few men in England, in Europe, can or do go back so far? And are there none but these, no not one, who knows the grounds of true religion?

"It was their revolt which brought wrath, and fire, and thickness, and darkness into nature." (ibid.) If it was sin that brought fire into the world, (which is hard to prove) did it bring darkness? And thickness too? But if it did what harm is there in either? Is not thickness as good in its place as thinness? And as to darkness you say yourself" It has not only no evil in it, but is the only ground of all possible good."

Touching creation in general you aver, "A creation out of nothing is no better sense than a creation into nothing." (p. 60.) "A creation into nothing" is a contradiction in terms. Can you say a

creation out of nothing is so? It is indeed tautology: since the single term creation is equivalent with production out of nothing. "That all things were created out of nothing, has not the least tittle of Scripture to support it." (p. 55.) Is it not supported (as all the Christian church has thought hitherto) by the very first verse of Genesis?

"Nay, it is a fiction big with the grossest absurdities. It is full of horrid consequences. It separates every thing from God. It leaves no relation between God and the creature. For, (mark the proof!) "if it is created out of nothing, it cannot have something of God in it." (p. 58.) The consequence is not clear. Till this is made good, can any of those propositions be allowed?

VOL. 9.-M

Nature is the first birth of God." Did God create it or not? If not, how came it out of him? If he did, did he create it out of something, or nothing?

"St. Paul says, All things are of, or out of God."-And what does this prove, but that God is the cause of all things?

"The materiality of the angelic kingdom was spiritual." (Sp. of Prayer, P. II. p. 27.) What is spiritual materiality? Is it not much the same with immaterial materiality?" This spiritual materiality brought forth the heavenly flesh and blood of angels." (p. 57.) That angels have bodies you affirm elsewhere. But are you sure, they have flesh and blood? Are not the angels spirits? And surely a spirit hath not flesh and blood.'

The whole glassy sea was a mirror of beauteous forms, colours, and sounds perpetually springing up, having also fruits and vegetables, but not gross, as the fruits of the world. This was continually bringing forth new figures of life; not animals, but ideal forms of the endless divisibility of life." (P. I. p. 18, 19.) This likewise is put into the mouth of God. But is nonsense from the Most High?

What less is "a mirror of beauteous sounds?" And what are "figures of life?" Are they alive or dead? Or between both? As a man may be between sleeping and waking? What are "ideal forms of endless divisibility of life?" Are they the same with those forms of stones, one of which Maraton took up (while he was seeking Yaratilda,) to throw at the form of a lion? See the Spectator.

"The glassy sea being become thick and dark, the spirit converted its fire and wrath into sun and stars, its dross and darkness into earth, its mobility into air, its moisture into water." P. II. p. 29.

Was wrath converted into sun or stars? Or a little of it bestowed on both? How was darkness turned into earth? Or mobility into air? Has not fire more mobility than this? Did there need omnipotence, to convert fire into fire? Into the Sun? Or moisture

into water?

"Darkness was absolutely unknown to the angels till they fell. Hence it appears, that darkness is the ground of the materiality of nature." (p. 33.) Appears? To whom? Nothing appears to me, but the proving ignotum per ignotius.

"All life is a desire." (Sp. of Love, P. II. p. 198.) Every desire, as such, is, and must be made up of contrariety." (ibid.) "God's bringing a sensible creature into existence, is the bringing the power of desire into a creaturely state." Does not all this require a little more proof? And not a little illustration?

"Hard and soft, thick and thin, could have no existence till nature lost its first purity. And this is the one true origin of all the mate riality of this world. Else nothing thick or hard could ever have been." (P. I. p. 21.) Does not this call for much proof? Since most people believe, God created matter, merely because so it seemed good in his sight.'

But you add a kind of proof.

How comes a flint to be so hard

and dark? It is because the meekness and fluidity of the light, air,

and water are not in it." (ibid.) The meekness of light, air, and water! What is that? Is air or water capable of virtue?

"The first property of nature is a constraining, attracting, and coagulating power." (p. 24.) I wait the proof of this.

66

God brought gross matter out of the sinful properties of nature, that thereby the fallen angels might lose all their power over them." (p. 27.) And have they lost all power over them? Is Satan no longer Prince of the power of the air?'

66

As all matter is owing to the first property of nature, which is an astringing, compressing desire." (p. 28.)-Stop here, Sir. I totally deny, that any unintelligent being is capable of any desire at all. And yet this gross, capital mistake runs through your whole theory. The fourth property is fire." (p. 49.) Where is the proof? which changes the properties of nature into an heavenly state." (p. 48.) Proof again. The conjunction of God and nature brings forth fire." This needs the most proof of all.

66

44

"Every right kindled fire must give forth light." Why? "Because the eternal fire is the effect of supernatural light." Nay then light should rather give forth fire. The fire of the soul and that of the body has but one nature." (p. 52.) Can either Behmen or Spinosa prove this?

III. Of Adam in Paradise.

"Paradise is an heavenly birth of life." (Sp. of Prayer, P. I. p. 6.) How does this definition explain the thing defined?

66

"Adam had at first both an heavenly and an earthly body. Into the latter was the spirit of this world breathed, and in this spirit and body did the heavenly spirit and body of Adam dwell." (p. 7.) So he had originally two bodies and two souls! This will need abundance of proof. "The spirit and body of this world was the medium, through which he was to have commerce with this world." The proof. But it was no more alive in him, than Satan and the serpent were alive in him at his first creation. Good and evil were then only in his outward body and in the outward world." What was there evil in the world, and even in Adam, together with Satan and the serpent, at his first creation? "But they were kept unactive by the power of the heavenly man within him:" Did this case cover the earthly man? Or the earthly case the heavenly?

But he had power to choose, whether he would use his outward body only as a mean of opening the outward world to him."-So it was not quite unactive neither: "or of opening the bestial life in himself. (p. 9.) Till this was opened in him, nothing in this outward world, no more than his own outward body:" (so now it is unactive again,) "could act upon him, make any impressions upon him, or raise any sensations in him; neither had he any feeling of good or evil from it." All this being entirely new, we must beg clear and full proof of it.

66

God said to man at his creation, rule thou over this imperfect, perishing world, without partaking of its impure nature." (p. 21.) Was not the world then at first perfect in its kind? Was it impure