134* On the Quinary System 



ritual beings; third, man; and then very seriously gives as 

 a proof that each of these forms a circle of itself, containing 

 three smaller circles, the Trinity of God I ! ! 



In reference to the minor circles contained in his natural 

 group of spiritual beings, he quotes from Coll, i. 16., where 

 St. Paul speaks of * principalities, powers, and rulers," which, 

 he considers, is referable to the three minor circles in ques- 

 tion ! ! 



Need the absurdity of this doctrine, I ask, be pointed out 

 to the reading and intelligent community of Britain ? 



Of unintelligent beings he can, in like manner conceive 

 but of three sorts ; namely, matter, time, space. Matter he 

 can only divide into two kinds, ponderable, and imponderable. 

 Time he considers as eternal, and divides it into past, present, 

 and future, " The first and the last," says he, " are incalcu- 

 lable, for they are eternal ; while the present is but as a con- 

 necting filament to each." Of space he remarks, " In like 

 manner, may it be broken into infinite portions ; but of its 

 first great divisions we know nothing more than can be dimly 

 gathered from certain passages in revelation." 



The belief that space, or, in other words, nothing, is divisible 

 into infinite portions, surprised us much : but that time is 

 eternal ; that the past and future, " are incalculable, for they 

 are eternal" is an expression, which most certainly would 

 have far better become the tongue of the infidel or the 

 heathen, than have proceeded from the pen of a British 

 author of the nineteenth century ! 



Bewsey House, Warrington, Nov. 7. 1835. 



No. II. 

 In page 203, of his " Treatise," Mr. Swainson gives the 

 circular disposition of the animal kingdom in a diagram, from 

 Mr. M'Leay's Horce Entomologicce, We there find that his 

 five circles consist of vertebrated (Vertebrata), molluscous 

 (Mollusca), acritous (A'crita), radiated (Radiata), and annulose 

 animals (Annulosa), each forming a circle of themselves. But 

 Mr. M'Leay found that these five circles would not "blend 

 into each other at their confines," thereby forming a natural 

 progressive series, without the intervention of five others, "much 

 smaller, indeed, in their extent, but forming so many connect- 

 ing, or osculant, circles;" thus making the number of circles 

 ten. This Mr. Swainson is aware of; for on the same page 

 he says, — " The number, therefore, as many erroneously 

 suppose, is not five, but ten" Now, I would ask Mr. Swainson, 

 or any of the supporters of this system, whether this is in 



