fonal defcent from heaven into this material world, but that they relate to the spiritual world only. That the laft judgment took place in the year 1757, and that the spiritual kingdom of Chrift, by which you understand the rife and spread of your new doctrine, commenced on the 19th of June, 1770. This kingdom of Christ, and confequently your doctrine, you believe is fpeedily to prevail over the whole world, and to continue for ever.'

The fecond Letter is on the infpiration of the great apoftle of the New Jerufalem Church; and Dr. Priestley, in his cool, perfuafive, familiar manner, in which we have often faid he excels, expoftulates with them on the little evidence they have in fupport of the infpiration of their apoftle. He replies to the anfwer which Swedenborg made to the fame objection in Heaven, and adverts to one fact where the baron is inadvertently too pofitive and exact. In the interior parts of Africa, he fays, the doctrine of the New Jerufalem Church is fully understood, as it is revealed by angels: now, if future difcoverers find no fuch tenets, and no fuch revelation, the credit of the baron muft fall to the ground, unless fupported by enthusiasm of a very fuperior degree. To enthufiafm, in general, facts form but a very feeble oppofition.

In the third Letter, on the Perfon of Christ, Dr. Priestley fhows, with great force and propriety, that, fo far as Chrift in his incarnate state is concerned, he cannot be the fame with God; but when he proceeds to confider thofe texts which are the chief fupport of the Trinitarians, and do not relate to Christ as made flesh,' his demonftration is not equally convincing: nor do we think the following very conciliating conclufion is juft, or will be very grateful to the members of the New Jerufalem Church.

With a change of your phrafeology, and very little in your ideas, you are as proper Unitarians as we who are ufually called Socinians. For we fay that the word, by which all things were created, and which dwelt in Chrift, was the one true God, befides whom there is no other, and that without this divine principle, Christ was a mere man, as other men are.

What is the difference, excepting in words, between saying that Jefus was a man united to God, and a man infpired by God, when in this cafe you cannot pretend to have any proper idea to the word united, or can fay wherein it differs from inspired. Man and God being more different in their natures than the iron and clay in Nebuchadnezzar's image, are no more capable of forming a proper union than thofe fubftances. Say then, in intelligible language, that Je fus was a man, but that God was with him, and acted by him, and we shall be agreed in words as well as in reality, and every defir

able

able confequence will flow from it. You will then, as now, difclaim all plurality of Gods, together with different perfons in the Trinity, and you will effectually fecure the truth of all the declarations of Chrift, as proceeding from God, just as much as if he himfelf had been God.'

The next fubject of Dr. Prieftley's animadverfion is the peculiar tenet which enforces, that the union of God and man in Christ was not at once complete, but that it proceeded gradually by means of the different trials and temptations to a more intimate connexion. The peculiar explanation of thofe texts of fcripture which, in the opinion of Trinitarians, establish the existence of the third perfon, the Holy Ghost, is also shortly

noticed.

The fecond coming of Chrift and a future judgment, with baron Swedenborg's ideas concerning God, divine influxes, and angels, are examined in the fifth and fixth Letters. In this enquiry, our author, who follows Dr. Hartley's fyftem, shows. that the baron's reasoning is wholly repugnant to the first principles of logic, and the moft common operations of the human mind. In the obfervations on the fpiritual world alfo, Dr. Priestley shows that, in these different vifits to other planets and to heaven, the vifionary apoftle was only copying the reveries of his own imagination: the following remarks are worth transcribing :

This fpiritual world of M. Swedenborg bears fome resemblance to the ideal world of Plato. Both, however, are equally the work of imagination; and it is remarkable that, as in dreams Mr. Swedenborg had no real new ideas communicated to him in the different worlds that he vifited, but only fuch combinations of old ideas as commonly occur in dreams. Wherever he went, he found beings in the form of men, and the fame animals that we have here, hills and vallies, feas and rivers, as with us; and though he vifited not only the moon, and the planets of our fyftem, but also various planets belonging to other funs, he fays nothing of that which has lately been discovered by Dr. Herschell. Had that planet, which, being the remoteft that we are yet acquainted with in our system, is fufficiently entitled to diftinction, no existence at that time? This does not look like inspiration.

There is fomething ftriking in Mr. Swedenborg's notion of the universal heaven resembling one man, therefore called by him the grand man, and that all things appertaining to man, both his exteriors and interiors, correspond to that man, or heaven. But there is no more foundation for it, than for his account of the fpiritual world in general. To conftitute this grand man, he fays, p. 9, "there is need of spirits from several earths, those who come from our earth into heaven not being sufficient for this purpose."

the

In this grand man he finds the inhabitants of all the different worlds that he vifited; and to fome of them he affigns one station and to others another. The fpirits in Mercury, he says, bave re lation to the memory, but to the memory of things abstracted from terrestrial and merely material objects. Those in Mars have rela tion to thought grounded in affection, p. 101; thofe in Saturn, p. 121, to the middle fenfe between the spiritual and the material man; and those in Venus, p. 126, to the memory of things matefial agreeing with the memory of things immaterial. The fpirits of one of his earths relate to the spleen, and thofe of others to different parts of the body. But what makes this fubject more curious is, that in this way he finds reafons, p. 133, why the Lord was willing to be born on our earth, and not on another. It was that the word might be written on our earth, and by this means be published and preferved to all pofterity, in confequence of the art of writing having exifted here from the most ancient time. "In every other earth (he fays, p. 136,) divine truth is manifefted by word of mouth, and not conveyed far beyond the limits of fami lies; fo that unless a new revelation conftantly fucceeds, truth is either perverted, or perishes." To thefe reafons he adds, that the inhabitants and fpirits of our earth, in the grand man, have a relation to natural and external fenfe. He adds other reasons, concluding with faying, p. 139, " but this is an arcanum which will be intelligible only to very few;" and in this fmall number I do not find myself included.

...There is certainly no fmall confufion in the ideas of Mr. Swedenborg when he makes the heavens in the fpiritual world fynonymous to angels, and the hells to devils; as if these real beings and the place which they occupy were the fame thing. But it is fimilar to his making angels refide in men's affections, as if they were neceffary parts of them, i. e. mere properties, and no fubftance at all; which he likewise afferts concerning God.'

On the whole, our author is inclined to conclude, that the baron was not a mere enthusiast: some of his fancies feem to have been inventions, and every part of his fyftem is repugnant to the fuppofition of his having been infpired.-The Appendix to the pamphlet contains fome curious extracts from the works of this very fingular fanatic.

Maps and Plans, Views and Coins, illuftrative of the Travels of Anacharfis the Younger in Greece, during the middle of the fourth Century before the Chriftian Era (Concluded from Vol. III. New Arrangement, p. 299-)

IT was not fufficient for the author of the Travels of Anacharfis to defcribe the most elegant and polished country of Europe, at a period when the other regions were unheard of,

when

when their inhabitants were sheltered by rocks, or fecured in the faftneffes of forefts, and when Rome itself struggled to obtain notice only by undaunted bravery, or ftoical apathy: it was not enough to have followed an imaginary traveller in his pleafing track, but the abbe has gone farther, and defigning to illuftrate the journeys of Anacharfis has, with the affiftance of M. Barbie de Bocage, added greatly to the accuracy of ancient geography. In the conftruction of the maps, the geographer has availed himself of the discoveries of modern travellers, and the accuracy of modern aftronomical obfervations, to give a correct delineation of countries which are prefented to the eye at the most fanguine period of life, and in the moft fafcinating colours. M. Barbie's minuter variations from the beft maps of ancient Greece, and even from the first of the ancient geographers, D'Anville, are numerous; but he has properly attended to D'Anville, and followed him, on the whole, with that refpect which is fo juftly his due, and which those best understand who have followed him in the fame thor ny and intricate path. To fay that D'Anville has no faults, is an idle prejudice: it is wonderful that fo few have been dif covered. We find it impoffible to enter fo fully into the geographical difquifitions as we intended; but it would be unjust to the author to omit mentioning particularly the more impor tant decorations, and the affiftance which the engraver has furnished. We muft finifh the fubject of decorations very concifely, and fhall only obferve, that they are of inferior me rit. They are generally copies from other works, and their chief praife is accuracy. In each department, the English work is by no means inferior to the original: in fome respects it is fuperior. Of the charts, the first is a general map of Greece. If compared with D'Anville's maps, it will be found to have the advantage in clearness and in execution, as well as to differ from it by a little variation of latitude, which pervades the whole. Every island is placed by M. Barbie a little farther north. Let us attend, however, to his own remarks in the introductory difquifition.

In all the maps I have used, for the comparative fcale, the common French leagues of 2500 toifes, because they have appeared to me in general to correfpond very nearly with the hour's jour ney employed by travellers in these countries. The Olympian ftadium, which in my maps I eftimate at 94 toifes 5 feet, is deduced from the length which M. Le Roi affigns to the Grecian foot. As to the Pythian ftadium, it is that which M. D'Anville has before ufed, and which he fixes at one-tenth part of the Roman mile, or four-fifths of the Olympian stadium. I have named it Pythian because it appears to me to have been principally in ufe

Q.3

ufe in the north of Greece; and becaufe, according to the remark of Spon, the ftadium which ftill exifts at Delphi, is fhorter than that of Athens. By the measure which we have of the latter, it appears that it was of the length, or nearly fo, of the Olympian ftadium. It is true that Cenforinus, when comparing the ftadia which he calls Italian, Olympian, and Pythian, makes the latter confift of 1000 feet; while the firft, according to him, only con tains 625, and the fecond 600. But Aulus Gellius, who wrote in Greece, exprefsly fays that the Olympian was the longest of all the ftadia; and, besides, M. D'Anville, and before him Lucas Poetus, have already remarked that Cenforinus here diftin guishes the Italian from the Olympian stadium, only from not knowing the difference of the feet of which they were compofed, and that 625 Roman feet are equal to 600 Grecian Olympian feet. We cannot therefore rely on the measure of the Pythian ftadium of Cenforinus. Yet if we take the 1000 feet for the mea fure of the diaulus, or double stadium, we shall still have, for the length of the Pythian ftadium, 500 feet, which are exactly four, fifths of 625 Roman feet. However this may be, the Pythian ftadium, being fhorter by one-fifth than the Olympian ftadium, must be equal to 75 toifes, 5 feet, z inches, 4 lines, French mea fure; or, to avoid fractions, 76 tcifes (161 yards 2 feet Eng.), as it has been eftimated by M, D'Anville.

I have fometimes made ufe of a ftill fhorter ftadium, or that which M. D'Anville calls the Macedonian or Egyptian, and which he estimates in feveral places from fifty toifes to fifty-four, or even more.'

The whole of this, from a very careful examination, we find ftrictly correct. The general map is laid down, on the idea that the earth is a plane, and the diminution of the degrees of longitude calculated from De la Lande's tables. The intervals of the meridians are afcertained by the tangents of the pa rallels 36 and 40, and the curvature of the parallels determined and laid down from the difference of the secant and the ra dius. The fituations are fupported, M. Barbie tells us, by numerous obfervations: among these the pofitions of Conftantinople, Salonichi, formerly Therma, Smyrna, Candia and Canea in Crete, and Rhodes, are particularly mentioned as having been determined by aftronomical obfervations, generally both in longitude and latitude.

The particular maps have for their bafis: 1. The obfervations of latitude taken by Vernon at Athens, Negropont or Chalcis, in Euboea, and Sparta. z. Two obfervations of latitude, which I found in the papers of M. Freret. They were taken by M. de Chazelles, one in the port of the island of Zante, or Za

cynthus,