CCCLXII.

To a finite creature, every thing is relative; nothing is absolute. Man's judgment and choice are, and always will be, the result of comparison. On earth, good and evil are set before him. In heaven, his comparison will be exercised between his morning, meridian, and evening states. Here, a man, although he as yet possesses nothing, feels supremely happy when first rescued from positive suffering, and so long as he compares his past with his present feelings. No one's sense of happiness depends on the extent of his possessions. When a man, through abundance, is freed from the comparison of less and more, his comparison commences between states of enjoyment and non-enjoyment of what is possessed. Even spiritual delights would pall, in man's present imperfect state, but for the comparison suggested by the experience of temptations. All these states are therefore regulated by the Lord with infinite care. (See Spiritual Diary, p. 23, n. 193. A most wonderful and encouraging passage.)

CCCLXIII.

What rational being would desire to grow rich, with the likelihood that, as the treasure of gold and silver of this world increases, the riches of goodness and truth will be gradually consumed by the kindling of the flame of worldly love, with ever-increasing intensity? And is there little likelihood of such a result? Let the sad records of Christian churches resolve this question. If watchfulness be ever necessary, it is especially so for the rich. It is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God; and unless he lay hold resolutely of the aid of Omnipotence, through which alone he can be saved from his peculiar temptations, he must perish.

CCCLXIV.

The dark night of temptation serves to reveal stars in our mental firmament, of the existence of which we should otherwise have had no knowledge.

CCCLXV.

The character of the gentleman,-and there is no good reason why this designation should be confined to any particular occupation or external condition, cannot be separated from that of the Christian, without the destruction of the latter. A gentleman may exist who is no Christian; but a Christian cannot exist who is no gentleman. A gentleman never wounds the feelings of another wantonly, because it is ungentlemanly to do so; and a Christian never does so, because it is contrary to Christian charity and duty.

CCCLXVI.

To take offence without reason, and thus to create a constructive and merely imaginary aggression, is, in effect, to become an aggressor.

CCCLXVII.

A man of irascible temper always assumes the existence of sufficient cause for his anger; while he assumes, at the same time, that there is no cause for the opposition of those who are at issue with him, But how very different is the view of an impartial bystander !

CCCLXVIII.

No spiritual man performs a harsh action on the ground of legal right; the main question with him is, how any act will be estimated in the world of spirits, according to the Divine standard of legality there extant.

CCCLXIX.

The time will come, when all Christians will respect the Lord in each other, and thus each other in the Lord. Females will respect males as God's male image, that is, the image of his Divine Truth; and males. will respect females as God's female image, that is, the image of his Divine Good or Love. This idea being early implanted, will render it all but impossible for the sexes to think unchastely of each other.

CCCLXX.

Females are entitled to certain rights at the hand of the other sex, namely, first, to suffer no trespass upon their chastity and modesty; secondly, to receive protection against those who would commit such trespass; and, thirdly, to receive a peculiarly respectful behaviour, in order to assure their natural timidity. But when females claim, in addition to these rights, to receive, of right, personal advantages and privileges by cession; or to receive, as their due, admiration and compliments, they depart from the modesty of their sex, and selfishly violate Christian humility and generosity.

(To be continued.)

THE INCONSISTENCY OF MODERN EXPOSITORS OF SCRIPTURE AND THEIR REVIEWERS.

To the Editor of the INTELLECTUAL REPOSITORY.
SIR,

THERE appeared, ten years ago, in the Intellectual Repository, a notice of a discussion with Dr. Henderson, of Highbury College, respecting the pretensions of Swedenborg. A correspondent, giving the initials

J. W. H., on seeing, in the Evangelical Magazine for March, 1836, a prospectus of a course of ten lectures on the subject of "Divine Inspiration," by Dr. Henderson, wrote to the doctor a most excellent letter on the views entertained by Swedenborg and his followers on this important subject; to this letter Dr. Henderson sent a brief reply, in which he intimates that his intercourse with the members of the church to which his correspondent belonged had not been limited, and that he had had the most favourable opportunities for making himself acquainted with the principles which they profess. He also mentions his being in possession of Mr. Noble's work on the Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures, and promises to make due use of it. In the course of the same year the ten lectures were delivered, printed, and published; and in the following year were reviewed in the Intellectual Repository, at considerable length, and certainly in the most Christian-like spirit, by a highly-talented and competent writer, under the signature of A. C. What use Dr. Henderson made of the kind remonstrance of his private correspondent J. W. H., and of Mr. Noble's work on the Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures, may be gathered from the concluding sentence of the able review just mentioned :—

"The learned author," says the reviewer, "will therefore excuse us, if we take no notice of his ebullitions against the doctrines of Swedenborg, and trust that he will attribute our silence in this respect rather to our willingness to forgive the intemperance of his feelings, than to any difficulty we might find in answering gratuitous assertion by friendly argument."

66

A few years after the publication of these lectures, Dr. Henderson put forth his Commentary on Isaiah;" and that work has been recently followed by another on the same principle, intitled "The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets, translated from the original Hebrew ; with a Commentary, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical." In both of these productions the author contends for the same views of inspiration and Scripture interpretation which he advocates in his lectures, and thus far, at least, he is consistent with himself, whether right or wrong. He may, or he may not, have seen the incontrovertible arguments advanced by the reviewer of his lectures in the Intellectual Repository; he may, or he may not, have read Mr. Noble's work on Inspiration; he may, or he may not, have availed himself of "the most favourable opportunities" which he has had of making himself acquainted with the principles professed by the followers of Swedenborg, which, we presume, were opportunities of examining Swedenborg's own writings; these things Dr. Henderson may have done, and yet not have felt convinced of the truth of a single argument advanced; but,

on the contrary, confirmed in his own preconceived opinions, and, from a sense of duty, may have felt bound to denounce the whole a dangerous heresy wrapt up in the "specious garb of spirituality." We may, and do feel sad at such a conclusion drawn from such premises, by so amiable and so able a inan as we know Dr. Henderson to be; but we can do no more; we cannot force him to see evidence, neither would we if we could.

Still deeper, however, is our regret at being obliged to prefer against him the charge of gross inconsistency with himself. True it is that such inconsistency is the natural result of the low, the loose, the undefined, the unverified and unverifiable notions of inspiration that have so long divided, and will continue to divide and distract, the Christian community, so long as they find advocates in the professed expositors of the Sacred volume; still, however, we confess we were scarcely prepared for such a display of inconsistency from such a quarter, and under such circumstances. As an example of what we mean, we quote the following paragraph from the preface to the work on the Minor Prophets :

"In no instance has the theory of a double sense been permitted to exert Its influence on his expositions. The author is firmly convinced, that the more this theory is impartially examined, the more it will be found that it goes to unsettle the foundations of Divine truth, to unhinge the mind of the biblical student, to invite the sneer and ridicule of unbelievers, and to open the door to the extravagant vagaries of a wild and unbridled imagination. Happily, the number of those who adhere to the multiform method of interpretation is rapidly diminishing, and there cannot be a doubt, that, in proportion as the principles of sacred hermeneutics come to be more severely studied, and perversions of the Word of God hereditarily kept up under the specious garb of spirituality, and a more profound understanding of Scripture, are discovered and exposed, the necessity of abandoning such slippery and vulnerable ground will be recognised, and the plain, simple, grammatical, and natural species of interpretation adopted and followed."

Now we readily admit that what the doctor here calls the “multiform" method of interpretation, obtains to a fearfully wide extent in the Christian world; that such method of interpretation is fraught with all the evils and dangers which he attributes to it, and that it deserves no better name than that which he bestows on it; but what has all this to do with the principle of interpretation maintained by his correspondent J.W. H., by the author of the review above mentioned, and by the writings of Swedenborg? Why did not the learned doctor here discriminate a little? He knew full well that there was ample room for discrimination. He knew, yes, he could not but know, that there is nothing in common between the UNIFORM principle of interpretatian recommended to his

attention by his friend J. W. H., and the MULTIFORM principle adopted by the writers of works on Christian Armour, Metaphors, and the composers of Gospel Sonnets. We beg to remind the doctor, that the multiform method of interpretation belongs to those expositors who are by him and his brethren extolled as orthodox; and among no class, perhaps, of divided Christendom is it more prominent than among the very section to which he himself belongs. Of the truth of this, we are sorry to say, we could offer multifarious proofs were they required; we shall content ourselves with one instance of very recent occurrence. The expositor was, according to his notions of "the principles of sacred hermeneutics," expounding Zech. iii. 9. The words :—“ 'Behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts!" referred, he said, to the hand which the Father had in the infliction of the sufferings endured by the Son; for, added he, in proof, we read that he was stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." To our mind this seemed to wear something of the appearance of a wild and unbridled imagination; very slippery and vulnerable ground this, thought we, to stand upon; and, withal, very like an extravagant vagary, but most of all like,— unmistakeably like, a gross perversion of the Word of God.

66

But this may be considered as digression, we shall therefore endeavour to keep a little closer to the point proposed. We remark, then, that Dr. Henderson affirms, in the above quotation, that, "in no instance" has he permitted the theory of a double sense to exert its influence on his expositions. How is this assertion sustained ? We will venture to try it. In Zech. xiv. 4, 5, we read :—“ And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal; ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah; and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee."

The reader, it is presumed, is well aware into how many different services this passage has been pressed by the "multifarious" principle advocates; peradventure he may even have seen Dr. Wolff's comments on it; but let him not for a moment entertain the thought that Dr. Henderson would offer him any other than a "plain, simple, grammatical, and natural interpretation" of it, because "in no instance" has he permitted the double sense to exert its influence on his expositions. Here,