Immortality proved by the testimony of sense

SECTION I.

The arguments considered which oppose the doctrine of Spectres.

Among the opinions of the present day, which render it neither clear nor dark, is that of materialism, which maintains the position that all exercises of the mind are the exercises of matter more or less refined and organized: Therefore, when this material organization ceases, all cogitation must cease: Body and soul, life and intelligence die together. Thought, and the capacity of thought have no existence between death and the last day. Now if this position and inference be true, the doctrine of Spectres is overthrown at once. Sure we may be that what never exists can never really appear, however I may be deluded by my own imagination, or the artifice of others. This position therefore, before we proceed, demands particular discussion.

If thought be the entire effect of material form, and excellent thought of excellent form, as these philosophers seem to suppose, it follows that the more excellent the body is the more excellent will be the mind. But facts shew the contrary. The goose, which sometimes appears in elegant human form, we despise; while we admire the fables of Æsop and the sublime verse of that poet, who was told what is the mark of interrogation. “But although the externals of body may be deformed, yet the internals of it may be well organized and refined.” What says the anatomist respecting the ourang outang? “Not only the externals, but the internals of his body resemble those of man, particularly the tongue and the brain. There appears no difference between them; yet the animal is dumb and has not so much sagacity even to provide for herself as the elephant or the beaver.” However certain laws and dispensations of Divine Providence, accommodated to the rude apprehensions of mankind in early ages, punished the posterity of sinners; yet it is one of the first dictates of reason as well as of a better covenant, that justice does not require any person to be rewarded or punished for the virtues or vices of another.[1] If soul and body die together; if all intelligence and cogitation cease from that moment to the last day, what becomes of personal identity and accountability? The essence of personality is intelligence. Every intelligent being is a person, and every person an intelligent being.[2] Therefore the uninterrupted continuation of any particular intelligence, necessarily implies his personal identity; whatever body, or whatever garment he may, or may not, happen to wear. Therefore, premising deference, personal identity does not necessarily comprise the whole man, soul and body, as Dr. Watts supposes, nor is it the mere consciousness of my past and present experience compared, as Mr. Locke supposes; for this my very consciousness presupposes that existence of which I am conscious. I may have committed faults and performed virtuous actions in time past, which now I do not remember, and therefore not conscious of them; still those actions were mine, whether I am conscious of them or not, and so far as any one can prove them to be mine, so far he can prove me to be the same person that I was in the time when those actions were performed. For more instruction, the reader may consult that excellent dissertation of Bishop Butler, on this topic; from which I extract a few lines: “As upon two triangles being compared or viewed together, there arises to the mind the idea of similitude; or upon twice two and four, the idea of equality—so likewise upon comparing the consciousness of one’s self in any two moments, there immediately arises to the mind the idea of personal identity. And as the two former comparisons not only give us the ideas of similitude and equality, but also shew us that two triangles are alike, and twice two and four are equal—so the latter comparison not only gives us the idea of personal identity, but also shows us the identity of ourselves in those two moments, that is, the present and that immediately past; or the present and that of a month, a year, or twenty years past. Or in other words, by reflecting upon that which is myself now, and that which was myself twenty years ago, I discern they are not two, but one and the same self. But the consciousness of what is past, does thus ascertain our personal identity to ourselves, yet to say that it makes personal identity, is to say that a person has not existed a single moment, nor done one action but what he can remember, and none but what he reflects upon. And one should really think it self evident that consciousness of personal identity presupposes, and therefore cannot constitute personal identity, any more than knowledge in any other case can constitute the truth which it presupposes.”

If this account of personal identity be just, then, by the doctrine here opposed, death puts an end to it. Affection, thought, intelligence, consciousness, all are no more, and therefore the person is no more. And as he is no more, nothing can be his. Now existence is entitled to no reward, deserves no punishment: is guilty of nothing and accountable for nothing. In a future day something may be raised up just like him in body and natural faculties of mind. But for this something, creation, not resurrection, is the appropriate term. Now can we conceive that the person struck entirely out of existence a thousand years ago, and this person newly created in his likeness, should be one and the same? No, we can as well conceive that two small houses built a thousand miles apart, and entirely resembling each other, are one and the same house. These new persons, if they reason, as some of us do, will think it somewhat strange that they should be accountable for crimes said to have been committed by them long before they were created. This doctrine, however, affords comfort and encouragement to all distinction of sinners in this world. Our punishment in a future state, say they, will not be inflicted upon us, (for after death we shall exist no more) but upon our representatives who shall bear our names, and be made to think that they were we. Let us then eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. Let us imitate those noble animals around us, which innocently deceive, kill and take possession; for to-morrow we shall exist no longer. What a foul reproach then does this doctrine exhibit against the wisdom and equity of the righteous Governor of the world? We now attend to the language of scripture respecting this opinion. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is grounded on the hypothesis that some persons are happy or miserable in the separate state, while others are living in the present world. The text, “Absent from the body and present with the Lord,” by the subtle philosophy of this enlightened age, signifies that after we, as persons, have been annihilated for some ages, a number of new persons, just then created, who shall be our very selves, will be present with the Lord. But in view of the simple christian, who knows but little, the plain meaning of the text is, that in the very same hour and minute, while we are absent from this corruptible body, we are present with the Lord. Such an ignorant christian is not able to conceive how a person, and a similar person residing on the two opposite shores of the vast duration of nihility, can be one and the same person, any more than to conceive how a person and a similar person, residing at the same time on the opposite shores of the vast Atlantic, can be one and the same person. Our Lord said to the penitent thief, “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise;” that is, before the close of this natural day thou shalt be with me in heaven. So the penitent thief in his state of ignorance would naturally understand it. But Priestlian subtilty requires this paraphrase, “This day shalt thou die, soul and body, and remain personally annihilated about two thousand years.” Then a person entirely new shall begin to exist, and shall erroneously imagine that within a few months he had committed a theft, that within a few hours he had been crucified, and obtained a promise which was now completely fulfilled. All this deception will take place, because he will be you. However, by intercourse with others, he and you will discover these chronological errors, and that those things which you had done, suffered and enjoyed, took place about two thousand years before you, that is, before the second you, existed. It was well for the thief that he knew not, and believed not, this paraphrase; otherwise that promise would have been a poor, cold consolation to him. The Sadducees denied the resurrection, and the existence of angel and spirit, and their denial of the former was grounded on their denial of the latter. They seemed to admit, that, if spirits existed in a separate state, they might assume bodies. But as there were no such spirits in their view, the inference was certain, that no such transition could take place. Therefore the argument of our Saviour attacked the very foundation of their theory, by shewing that the patriarchs, though dead for many years, and their bodies not raised, were still alive, while Moses stood at the burning bush.[3] Our Lord cited these words, addressed to Moses at that time, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;” and then says, “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him.” That is to say, they do not live unto man. In his natural view, they are dead in every respect. They see no life in his body, nor any where else; still they live unto God. In his view they have life, thought, affection and intelligence. Therefore those dead patriarchs were alive at the time when Moses beheld the burning bush. “Fear not them which kill the body, saith our Lord, but are not able to kill the soul.”[4] But why? What is the reason they are not able to kill the soul? If soul and body die together—if death destroys the essential properties of the soul as well as of the body, certainly they, who are able to kill the body, are able to kill the soul. But the words now cited were uttered by him who could not err; and for the writer it is impossible to conceive how words could be framed to make a proposition more plain and intelligible. But in this age of light and darkness, many, who believe in immortality and the separate state, utterly deny that any departed soul ever returns or becomes visible to our bodily eyes. Of this persuasion are the authors of the American Cyclopedia. Their arguments, which demand attention, are the following: The first argument contemplates the ignorance and vulgarity associated with the opinion which maintains the existence of Spectres. “It is true there were many Christians in former times, who gave full credit to such narratives; these were times of great ignorance and superstition. But since philosophy and christianity have walked hand in hand, the faith of ghosts has been more and more renounced, invariably.” So it seems that if a pious man has learning enough, he is perfectly secure from all such delusions. But is this representation entirely consonant with facts? That christian literature has invariably renounced this opinion is by no means correct. Not only was the faith of Spectres supported by some of the most learned and eminent characters of antiquity, but moderns, illustrious both in theology and philosophy, even since the Protestant Reformation, have given their decided opinion in favor of this doctrine. Among others, are Doctor Lightfoot, Mr. Flavel, Mr. Hervy, Mr. Addison, Doctor Samuel Johnson, and the excellent Mr. Swedenbourg. Will it be proved that all these modern names are entirely ignorant either of theology or philosophy?

The foundation of theology is the Sacred Scriptures, and there we find the doctrine of apparitions. Samuel appeared to Saul when he applied for advice to the witch of Endor.[5] There is however no proof that his appearance was the effect of her own power. Two things terrified her: one was the discovery of Saul; the other was, Aliem, a god, rising out of the earth. How could she be terrified merely by the expected effect of her own invention? It is most reasonable to suppose that the event exceeded her expectation—that Samuel really appeared—not to flatter Saul by a sentence of double meaning, like the heathen oracles; but to speak like himself—to reprove Saul for coming there, and to denounce that terrible sentence upon him and his house, which might naturally be expected from that faithful prophet.

When the disciples saw Jesus walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, it is a spirit, and they cried out for fear; but his answer was, “Be of good cheer, it is I; be not afraid.” Here we see the disciples believed the existence of Spectres, and here was a fair opportunity for our Lord to teach them the contrary. But he did not thus improve it: for after his resurrection they discovered the same opinion. He asked one of them to handle him; not to disprove their opinion, but to prove his resurrection. Some time after this, Peter, miraculously delivered from prison, knocked at the house of Mary, where many were gathered for prayer. The damsel Rhoda, constantly affirmed to them that she heard Peter’s voice. Then said they, “It is his angel.” Thus their opinion continued the same through the fairest opportunities of their being taught otherwise by unerring wisdom. But they had never read Voltaire, nor Hume’s observation on the Sprights of the British Fathers.

Arg. 2. “When the Scriptures were written and published, and the christian religion fully established, revelation ceased, and miracles and heavenly messages were no longer requisite.”

How do they know? How can they know these matters, unless by the Scriptures? And where do they say, that after the establishment of christianity, miracles and heavenly messages should be no longer requisite? It is believed that no such passage can be found.

It was the full persuasion of Mr. Addison, that the power of working miracles continued in the church many years after the Apostolic age. He informs us that learned christians of those times, “Confidently assert this miraculous power; nay, tell us that they themselves had been eye witnesses of it at several times and in several instances. Nay, appeal to the heathen themselves for the truth of several facts they relate; nay, challenge them to be present at their assemblies, and satisfy themselves, if they doubt it; nay, we find that pagan authors have in some instances confessed this miraculous power.”[6]

Doubtless the Scriptures contain rules sufficient for salvation. And every opposite rule, though preached by an angel, must be rejected; and the same was true of the Old Testament before the New was revealed. But it will by no means follow that no succeeding age of the world can afford an occasion for any miracle or heavenly message which is consistent with the Scriptures. That “the whole will of God is revealed in the Scriptures,” as it respects our general conduct, is doubtless true; and the same was true of the law of Moses, as it respected the general conduct of Israel in the days of the Judges. He was pronounced cursed, who took away or added thereunto. But hence it did not follow that an angel could not appear to Manoah and his wife, promise them a child, and give directions concerning his education. To say that the whole will of God is so revealed in the Scriptures, that no case whatever can require any extraordinary exhibition of his will, is to say what is never said in that sacred volume, and is no better than begging the question.

There may be miracles and heavenly messages without innovation of Scripture doctrine or worship. “To say that God does not send his angels to any of his saints to communicate his mind unto them, as to some particulars of their own duty according to his word, seems in my judgment, says the great Doctor Owen, to limit unwarrantably the Holy One of Israel.”

Arg. 3. “Can we suppose that the all-wise Governor of the world would permit his angels to render themselves visible to the eye of man, for a purpose which might have been equally well accomplished without their interposition?”

This question is very easy. Another might appear more difficult. Have our authors such perfect knowledge of the universal system, that they can certainly tell us what purposes can be equally well accomplished without the interposition of angels, as with it?

The hairs of the head and the smallest animalculæ are numbered; so are all events. Small events by connection are frequently great events. If therefore, the purposes for which a spirit is said to appear, are as small and trivial as can be conceived of, it would by no means follow that the message did not come from the invisible state. That which appears very trivial in our view, may appear vastly important in the view of those seven eyes which survey the whole system of Providence, and destroy the wisdom of the wise.

Arg. 4. “Death is as great a change as that of our birth. And is it not as improbable that a man should visibly return after death, as that he should return from a state of manhood, to that which preceded his birth?” That is to say; Is it not as improbable that a species of miracle should take place, the existence of which has been taught and believed in all ages and nations, and is the manifest lesson of the Scriptures; as that a species of miracle should take place, which nobody ever believed or heard of?

Is it not as improbable that a man should rise from the dead at the last day, as that he should return from a state of manhood to that which preceded his birth.

This question of the infidel demands some attention, as well as the question in view.

Arg. 5. “There is a strong objection against the probability of Spectres, which is sufficient to prove that they are not intelligent creatures; or at least, that they possess so small a degree of intelligence, that they are unqualified to act with prudence, to propose any end to themselves, or use the proper means to accomplish that end. Ghosts often appear in order to discover some crime; but they never appear to a magistrate, or person in authority, but to some illiterate clown, who happens to live near the place where the crime was perpetrated: to some person who has no connection with the affair at all, and who, in general, is the most improper in the world for making the discovery.”

In Glanville’s Saducismus Triumphatus, we have the following story:—

“James Haddock, a farmer, was married to Eleanor Welsh, by whom he had a son. After the death of Haddock, his wife married one Davis, and both agreed to defraud the son by the former marriage, of a lease bequeathed to him by his father. Upon this the ghost of Haddock appeared to one Francis Tavernor, the servant of Lord Chichester, and desired him to go to Eleanor Welsh and inform her that it was the will of her former husband that the son should enjoy the lease. Tavernor did not at first execute this commission, but he was continually haunted by the apparition in the most hideous shapes, which even threatened to tear him in pieces, till at last he delivered the message. Now had this Spectre the least common sense, it would have appeared first to Eleanor Welsh and her husband, Davis, and frightened them into compliance at once, and not have kept poor Tavernor in such constant disquietude, who had no concern in the matter.”

Here we find several propositions with regard to Spectres in general, which demand credit only for one short story, the truth of which might be as consistently disputed by the apparitionists, as by the Encyclopedia. It does not appear that this apparition was seen or heard by any one except Tavernor. What evidence then have we that Tavernor was not the dupe of one who personated Haddock out of pity to the orphan son?

Could our authors imagine that Mr. Addison, Doctor Johnson, or even Mr. Glanville himself, built the faith of Spectres, only on such feeble evidence as this story affords?

Will that mode of conduct adopted by Tavernor’s Spectre, teach us what is the conduct of Spectres in general, till we, who believe the reality of Spectres, can be satisfied whether Tavernor ever saw a Spectre or not?

Circumstances unknown to us, however, might be so attached to that affair, as to render it credible to Davis and his wife, if not to others.

Therefore, admitting the supposition of our believing it a reality, how have our authors proved that this very Spectre conducted imprudently, proposed no end to himself, or used no proper means to accomplish that end? “Because, say they, he did not first appear to Eleanor Welsh and her husband, and frighten them into compliance at once.” But how does it appear that this summary method, all things considered, would have been the most eligible. Doubtless some infidels are bold enough to say that the angel, who sent Moses to Pharaoh from Horeb, would have conducted much more prudently and rationally, if he had first appeared to Pharaoh, and frightened him into compliance at once, than to have kept Moses in such disquietude, who had less concern in the matter than any man in Egypt, for he was now married and peaceably settled in another land. The end proposed by the ghost appearing to Tavernor was, that the son of Haddock should enjoy the lease, and this end was subordinate and absolutely necessary to other ends of far greater magnitude, for any thing which the Cyclopedia has shewn to the contrary.

We find in the Scriptures such a connection of means and ends as the wisdom of some moderns would never dictate: as that of Ezek. 4: 15, and the marriage of Hosea transacted, either in reality or in vision. These means, doubtless, would not have appeared the most decent and eligible to some of those who seem capable of dictating for apparitions, the proper mode of their procedure.

But suppose Tavernor’s ghost had first appeared to Eleanor Welsh and her husband, and frighted them into compliance at once, would the existence of Spectres be any more believed than it is at present? Would not the objection have been that Eleanor Welsh had the maternal affection for her son? Had never really consented to the crime—that her own fear was feigned, and that the ghost was some friend employed by her to frighten and deceive her husband?

Or if the ghost had first appeared to a magistrate: should we not have been told how much more probable it was that a magistrate should bear a part in some artifice which afforded him profit, than that a miracle had happened equal to the transition from a state of manhood to that which preceded our birth? It is no dishonor to the most illustrious of mankind that they frequently entertain the same opinion as that of their inferiors. On the mode of conduct proper for a Spectre, our authors agree in sentiment with that Heroine of a famous English ballad,[7] who with the habiliments there described, frightened a person into compliance at once. She gave him no opportunity to deliberate or to authenticate her mission. Compliance, or immediate ruin were his only alternative. Her name was honored by three queens, and the favor of Henry the eighth.

Spectres from heaven are rational creatures, and come down from the fountain of reason, and will therefore deal reasonably with us, by allowing us a fair opportunity to ascertain the reality of their mission. But for this examination, the mind is incapable when terrified by a sudden surprise.

Eleanor Welsh being the mother of the injured, must have been interested, and therefore, if the Spectre had first appeared to her and her husband, there certainly would have been less evidence of reality (coct. par) than there was by its first appearing to Tavernor, who, by the very supposition of our author, was a disinterested person, and “had no concern in the matter.”

We find in the next place several naked assertions, and then the inference that, “The evidence of Spectres is destroyed.” They tell us that Spectres appear only to one person at a time—that they are seen only in the night, and visible only to the illiterate and credulous. “A man must be prejudiced in favor of this opinion beforehand, say they, or he will never see a ghost.”

I must not offend the reader by needless detention. He may easily find instances to disprove these assertions. As to the last, besides Doctor Scott, several persons of distinguished abilities, probity and literature, who have seen ghosts, have declared to the writer, that instead of previously believing their existence, their minds had been strongly prejudiced against it.

Our authors desire to know why Spectres should appear in the night, and “why they could not deliver their messages with as much ease and more success in the day time.” And doubtless Bolingbroke had a similar enquiry respecting the angel who appeared to the shepherds in the night.

“To render the testimony of any person credible, say these writers, he must not only be a man of veracity, but of sufficient ability to judge of the subject to which he is to bear witness. It is not on the evidence of an ignorant, illiterate person, who has more fancy and fear than judgment, that we are to rest our belief of what is supernatural.” Here again their weapon is from the arsenal of those who oppose our Saviour’s resurrection, known first to some of “the timorous and pious sex,” as Hume has termed them, and then to illiterate, ignorant fishermen, who, say the deists, had more fancy and fear than judgment. The truth is, some ignorant men have no more fancy nor fear than the learned, and a much better judgment than many of the latter. The corporeal senses of the illiterate are as infallible as those of the learned. The former can see and hear a ghost or an angel as distinctly as the latter, and can attempt to handle a ghost with as much composure of mind, and so are capable of knowing whether they can feel a substance or not, as a Locke or a Newton.

On the whole, it appears that the reason why mankind in this enlightened age, must believe that apparitions are a mere fiction, is not because this negative thesis was ever established by any solid demonstration, but because the unanimity of modern names, the substitute of argument, has given it popularity.

Doubtless the counterfeit apparitions which duped the popish ages, were numerous; but counterfeits will never prove that there is nothing to be counterfeited.

Among the greatest impositions of this nature, where shall we find one, which will compare with the late events of Sullivan, in the county of Hancock, Maine. In that place has never been found any theatrical representation, or magic glass, or lantern, or ventriloquist, or speaking automaton, or Phantasmagoria, or Statue of Kircher: and were all these means of imposition found there, they would afford no rational explanation of the subsequent phenomena. How easy of solution was that fraud in the city of Bern, mentioned by Mosheim,[8] as imposed upon one Jetzer, by four Dominicans, to confirm their doctrine of original sin. The apparition was indeed terrific, and exhibited false miracles, but never offered to appear in the day time, nor predict any event, which could not be foreknown by other means, nor was there any address to the sense of feeling to satisfy Jetzer that the Spectre was a Phantom.

The Encyclopedia have related a wonderful artifice from Doctor Plot, performed undoubtedly by a number of persons at Woodstock, in England, soon after the death of king Charles the first, while certain commissioners appointed to survey his property there, were engaged to accomplish their business. But in all that marvelous story, we find no comparison with the events we are about to contemplate. The only apparition seen there, was that of a dog! none of them observed the manner of his being introduced among them. They saw no changes of shape or magnitude, nor does it appear that any of them saw him vanish. They heard no articulate voice, much less any declaration of truth, unattainable by other means.

As to the Cocklane ghost, which produced so much noise and credit in London; there was neither articulate voice, nor any kind of apparition. All these artifices, and a thousand more which history commemorates, are swallowed up by the subsequent phenomena, as Aaron’s rod swallowed up the rods of the magicians.

Pause then, reader, and consider a few moments what evidence would convince you of the existence of a Spectre. Before you stands a creature encircled with radiance resembling the sun. Through the rays you behold a personal form as plainly as possible. This form speaks to you. The same is seen and heard by thirty others at the same time and in the same manner, so that your experience and theirs are uniform; while two or three other persons with the same ocular advantages, and looking in the same direction, hear the voice, but see nothing, having been previously told by the Spectre that they should only hear and not see.

With a voice distinct from that of the living, so that none of you can perceive the least manifestation of breathing, this personal form tells you not to be afraid—that nothing will hurt you—to stand as near as you please, and handle him that you may know whether or not he is flesh and bones. You comply with the request, and find no material substance. Now what would be your conclusion? Would you feel sure that these matters were all the effect of your own fancy and that of others? Can you produce a single instance out of all history, in which so many persons were thus impressed, while in reality they saw and heard nothing? But suppose further, that this Spectre informs you of events which you cannot possibly know by other means, what then would be the inference? “I make a distinction, says Doctor Johnson, between what a man may experience by the mere strength of his imagination, and what imagination cannot possibly produce.” Thus, suppose I should think I saw a form and heard a voice cry, “Johnson, you are very wicked—and unless you repent, you will certainly be punished;” my own unworthiness is so deeply impressed on my mind, that I might imagine I thus saw and heard, and therefore I should not believe that an external communication had been made to me. But if a form should appear and a voice should tell me that a particular man had died at a particular hour—a fact which I had no apprehension of, nor any means of knowing, and this fact, with all its circumstances, should afterwards be unquestionably proved; I should in that case be persuaded that I had supernatural intelligence imparted to me. By this it appears, that had Doctor Johnson been an eye and ear witness of only a small part of what is now to be related, he would have believed that he had seen the form and heard the language of a Spectre. “He had a very philosophical mind, says Mr. Boswell, and such a rational respect for testimony, as to make him submit his understanding to what was authentically proved, though he could not comprehend why it was so.”[9] And the same will be the disposition of every pious and reasonable mind. But if you reject the evidence of experience, the evidence of substantial testimony and the evidence of predictions, where are you? On the billows of scepticism, without a helm, and your lee shore is infidelity.

It is frequently asserted, and that by multitudes, that the true origin of the following letters is a gross artifice. Asserted I say: for that is all. Twenty-six years’ time they have had to look round, search and prove that they are not mistaken. And for this purpose, means and pains have not been wanting. Nothing however has yet transpired to make good the assertion; but remarkable events have disproved it.

It is well known that some of the witnesses have been prosecuted for mountebanks; but nothing even to form an indictment could be found against them. Do I misrepresent? Do I mislead the credulous? Then let me be convinced? yea, let me be exposed. Let the cause be fully and fairly tried by friendly discussion; not in a future century, when we shall dwell in silence, but now, while the means of evidence are at hand—while the witnesses and their opponents are yet living.

If we love our neighbors, we prize their characters, and forbear needless censure, especially in a case like this. “Judge not that ye be not judged.”

For our conclusion, the words of the celebrated Mr. Addison and of Mr. Hartly are not impertinent: “I think a person who is terrified with the imagination of ghosts and Spectres, much more reasonable than one, who, contrary to the report of all historians, sacred and profane, ancient and modern, and to the traditions of all nations, thinks the appearance of Spirits fabulous and groundless. Could not I give myself up to this general testimony, I should to the relations of particular persons, who are now living, and whom I could not distrust in other matters of fact.”[10] “Certain it is, says Mr. Hartly, that Spirits can become visible and converse with us, as man with man; and so innumerable are the instances hereof, as also of their discoveries, warnings, predictions, &c., that I may venture to affirm with an appeal to the public for the truth of it, that there are few ancient families in any county of Great Britain, who are not possessed of records or traditions of the same in their own houses, however the prevailing Sadducism of these times, may have sunk the credit of them.”—Preface to Swedenborg’s treatise of heaven and hell, p. 18.

His whole discussion of this topic demands our peculiar attention.

As the glorious descent of New Jerusalem is at hand, and perhaps already begun, it is not improbable that henceforth these phenomena will exceedingly multiply, and then destroy the wisdom of the wise. New Jerusalem will descend, i. e. the saints will descend from heaven and make visible their spiritual bodies. While those heavenly doctrines are inculcated, which establish a church new and glorious; so that the old christian church has no glory by reason of the glory which excelleth. Then Universalism, Socinianism, Arianism, and the grossly absurd doctrine of Divine tri-personality will deceive the nations no more for a thousand years.[11]