wondther at thy seconding that." Why so?" returned Mr. Wilson. "They 'ne o'erseen thee, and they 'ill beat thee on that subject." "Well," was Mr. Wilson's reply, "we'se see when th' toime cooms."

In these debates the Wesleyans did not confine themselves to their own body, but obtained the services of any one likely to help them in the conflict. The time in due course arrived, and on this occasion they had secured the aid of a Baptist. As the proposition had originated with the Wesleyans, it was the duty of their representative to open the discussion. When he had occupied his quarter of an hour, Mr. Wilson rose and said, "The question before us is, 'Is the body ever alive? Now there is nothing alive but life. Consequently if the body were ever alive it must be life; and being life it never could die, because you cannot separate a thing from itself." When Mr. Wilson resumed his seat, his old friend who again accompanied him elated with the view Mr. Wilson had presented, said, "Tummus thae may sit thee daen nae (now) au con carry it on."

His opponent replied that the gentleman on the opposite side had taken a very easy course. He had made an assertion, assumed it as a premiss, and reasoned from it. He had not noticed his arguments, much less attempted any refutation of them; but had simply taken as a proposition to reason upon "There's nothing alive but life;" and he on his part might assert that there is nothing dead but death, and reason from that.

Mr. Wilson, in rejoinder, said, “The gentleman states that I have taken a very easy course, having contented myself with reasoning from the assertion 'There's nothing alive but life;' and that he might follow my example, and take as a proposition to reason from, 'There's nothing dead but death,' and reason from that. Now if the gentle

man were to take that proposition, he would be perfectly correct; for if there is nothing alive but life, there can be nothing dead but death. And seeing that the body is never alive, since if it were it would be life, and could never die, because you cannot separate a thing from itself; it follows that the body is death, and that when the life is separated from it nothing but death remains."

At length the Baptist, holding out his handkerchief, asked Mr. Wilson, if he were to dip his handkerchief in water, would not he say it was wet?

To which Mr. Wilson rejoined, "I should say the water was wet, but if the handkerchief was wet, how would you dry it, since you cannot separate a thing from itself? So with the material body: not

!

being life but death, when the life is separated, nothing but death remains, just the same as with the handkerchief, in which, when you have separated the water from it, there is nothing but dry remains." So ended this protracted controversy. No further point was proposed, and no subsequent meetings were held.

The second discussion of which I have been able to obtain any of the particulars occurred a few years before his death at Ashton-underLyne, between him and one of the dissenting ministers of the town, and was presided over by a member of the Ashton town council. The subject was the Trinity. It was opened by the other side, the advocate of the popular doctrines remarking that he should not go to the heathen philosophers nor the sages of antiquity, but to the Scriptures. From these he learned there were three Persons in one God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which was the sublime mystery of the Trinity on which the Christian Church rested.

Mr. Wilson replied that he could fully agree with his opponent that the Scriptures were the only source whence information respecting the Trinity could be obtained; and that he was prepared to go further, and maintain that revelation was the only fountain of all ideas concerning the Divine existence. It was understood then that they were to appeal to the Bible for their authority and guide. The gentleman on the other side had stated that he gathered from the Scriptures that the Trinity consisted of three Persons in One God. Whether the gentleman understood what he said or not, he (Mr. W.) would not stop to inquire; but his statements were anything but intelligible. For instance, he had spoken of the Trinity as consisting of three Divine Persons in One God. Now if the three Persons were in One God, God and the Persons in Him must be distinct, that would make four. Then he had not explained to them in what way he understood the the three Persons being in One God. Mr. W. added that he could understand three things being put into a sack or a box; was it in some such way he was to understand the three Persons being in One God? But they had agreed to abide by the Scriptures. Now if they went to them for their authority, so far from finding three Persons in the Godhead, they would not find two or even one Person there; but, on the contrary, the Bible taught that instead of any Persons being in the Godhead, the whole of the Godhead was in One Person, and that the Person of Jesus Christ; for "IN HIM dwelleth ALL the fulness of the GODHEAD BODILY."

When the discussion had arrived at this stage, the minister opposed

to Mr. Wilson expressed a wish not to proceed any further with it. "But," inquired the chairman, "is Mr. Wilson willing to consent to that arrangement." "I am agreeable," replied Mr. Wilson, "either road. If the gentleman wishes to continue, we will go on; if not, we will drop it." The minister still intimated his desire that the debate should terminate, but wished to say a few words in conclusion. This being conceded, he went on to say that the three Persons in the Godhead were equal-equal in power, eternity, infinity, and every other attribute. That in consequence of man having transgressed the commandment given to him, God the Father demanded the vindication of his justice, which could only be satisfied with the eternal punishment of the sinner; when God the Son out of pity offered to undergo the punishment due to man, and thus to save him from the penalty impending over him, and restore him to favour; so that now God pardons the sinner in consideration of what Christ had suffered, and the Holy Ghost imparts the gift of the Spirit, &c.

In reply to these remarks, Mr. Wilson said, "It was first stated by the gentleman that the three Persons in the Godhead were all equal, and afterwards he made them as unequal as possible. If, according to the explanation we have heard, they are all equal, they must be equal in justice, as well as their other attributes; consequently the Son, and the Holy Spirit, must have had the same sense of an inexorable justice as the Father, and if His justice demanded the eternal punishment of the sinner, so likewise must that of the Son. But instead of this, so far from any desire to exact the claims of His justice, he not only waived them on His own part but was willing to satisfy those of the first Person; whilst the Holy Ghost did not appear to have much concern about the matter, but was willing to fall in with the arrangements agreed upon by the other two. But nothing of this is found in the Bible; for, according to the testimony there given, as I have already shown, instead of there being three Persons in the Godhead the whole of the Godhead is centred, and dwells in the One Person of Jesus Christ. What then becomes of all these speculations of our friend? They have no foundation in either Scripture or reason.

Thus then ended the last public debate Mr. Wilson held. As he left the room where it had taken place, a woman who was waiting at the door accosted him with, "Eh, Mest-ther, yo an wel-ly (well nigh) kilt yon mon!" "Oh no," said Mr. Wilson, "he's none kil't; get o'er it you'll see. That's a disease folk dunnot dee on."

he'll

The results of Mr. Wilson's labours in connection with Failsworth

have been most successful. The Society there is active and intelligent. They have ereeted a spacious and commodious place of worship, established a flourishing day-school, and although consisting entirely, or with one or two exceptions, of the working class, they have recently erected an excellent school-room; showing that the permanent success of the New Church is less dependent on the popular talents of her ministry, than on receiving sound and fundamental instruction in her doctrines.

HOW WAS MAN CREATED?

TO THE EDITOR OF THE

INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY."

DEAR SIR,—I have been for some years past a careful reader of The Intellectual Repository, and it has always been an interesting point. with me to observe the view of the scientific theories of Darwin, Huxley, &c., which a New Churchman would take. While for the last seven years I have read as many of Swedenborg's writings as I could lay my hands upon, I have, during that period, also perused the books of the two above-named authors, also the writings of others on the same subjects; and I have carefully endeavoured to see how Swedenborg treats those subjects. I am aware that if he may be said to treat of them at all, it is by anticipation; and is it not so in many respects with the great Swedish philosopher and divine? And what he says is of none the less force because it is anticipatory and germinal. Rather

more.

In proposing to offer you a paper on the subject of How Man was Made, I do not presume to teach the author of some papers in the Intellectual Repository on Man and the Animal Kingdom (extending from May to August 1871), but my reason is this: I thought that he would not be offended, and the readers of the Magazine might like to see what can be said in favour of Darwin's hypothesis, and also they would feel that some use might be performed in opening your columns to one who does not belong to the usual staff of writers, and who belongs to another than what is called a New Church Society.

I acknowledge that Darwin's theory of development is imperfectprobably very imperfect and I think he himself is modest enough to own that it is perhaps very imperfect. But one of his imperfections as a man of science are those which are shared alike by other men who are orthodox in religion and in science, viz., this: they all alike are ignorant of the spiritual world as that world is brought to light in the writings of Swedenborg, consequently none of them see that there is a constant and unintermitting influx of the one into the other, and that the influx of the spiritual into the natural is at the back of all phenomena of life and may be said to be life. Now, I am aware that some of whom I thus speak acknowledge God and the spiritaal world; but though they acknowledge both they see no philosophical connexion

between the two, and hence their imperfect theories or their want of any true and comprehensive theory of creation. Now what is needed to render our conception of any existing thing complete is the perceiving of the various and different principles composing that thing which answer to the powers of perception within ourselves; e.g. as in everything there is a spiritual principle forming the essence of it, and another principle forming the phenomenal, so in us there is the observing faculty to take cognizance of phenomena and the natural faculty to perceive the spiritual principle. We might speak of other essences or accidents belonging to objects, but it is not of importance just now as it is not the moral lessons contained in things we are speaking of. Darwin, Huxley, Lyall, Baden Powell, and nearly all the foremost scientific men of the present day, are unsatisfactory to the mind because they know nothing of the philosophy of the spiritual world. They can only hope to meet the want of those who look out only for the phenomenal—and alas such men are legion! and he who looks out for anything more is called "visionary" and "unscientific."

I for one am most thankful to God and to Swedenborg that a full-orbed philosophy is firm; and the one-sided account of the naturalistic school would only plague me, and perhaps drive me to madness or infidelity, were it not for that gift.

But possessing a boon so grand, with its light so brilliant, I think I can see that most of those unsatisfactory writers have got hold of some valuable clue to the manner in which we come into being. I say the manner in which, and desire to emphasize it a great deal, for, as I think, Darwin, &c., write chiefly and almost exclusively on that point. They do not deny the Divine Being as Creator, although there is in Huxley, at least, a passage or two which might be so construed; but elsewhere he abundantly confesses himself a Christian, although not of the orthodox type. But that surely is nothing to a follower of Swedenborg-nothing to disparage him.1

The writers on the subjects of "Natural Selection" and "Sexual Selection" usually profess not to deal with the powers or forces by which phenomena appear, nor do they enter into the question of the wisdom of the Creator in relation to His creative acts. They say that is a legitimate province for discussion, but it is not theirs; and they leave it alone. They think wisely, we think otherwise-that that is the sad defect in them.2

I am aware that Darwin, in his "Descent of Man," &c., speaks of moral sentiments and of intellectual faculties, and speculates somewhat about the way in which they are developed, but even then, though speaking of that which is non-material, he is nevertheless adhering strictly to the phenomenal. For the moral and spiritual worlds have their phenomenal side as well as their causative and essential. He (Darwin) endeavours to trace antecedents and consequents in order of time, and as they would appear to an observer, whether a con1 See Huxley's Lecture to Young Men's Christian Association in "Lay Sermons." 2 I would except from this category A. R. Wallace.