only the representative of a Church, could be instituted among them, owing to the fact that they were, as a people, wholly in externals, without any real internal principles of religion or of worship; a fact which is symbolized in the representative act of Zipporah, or her circumcising of her son (circumcision being, as is well known, the principal and distinguishing rite of the Jewish worship), and casting the foreskin at the feet of Moses.

In this manner, therefore, is this mysterious passage, according to our views, to be explained, and, we would ask, is not the explanation one which satisfactorily accounts for the peculiar and mystical character of the transaction, and of the language in which it is couched, and which is, at the same time, reasonable in itself, as well as in perfect harmony with known facts respecting the Jewish people and Church?

(2) Our second example of this kind is a short one and need not occupy much space. It occurs in 1 Sam. x. 26, at the close of the account of Saul's election as king of Israel; where we read that as Saul went home to Gibeah, "there went with him a band of men whose hearts God had touched." Now whatever doubts there may be as to the literal meaning of the words we have here italicized-and they are not easy of explanation in their simple historical sense-there can be no question as to their signification in the spiritual sense which we are advocating in this work. As we have seen in a previous chapter, the Divine appellation GoD is always employed where the Divine Truth, or Faith, of which the Truth is the object, is the subject of discourse. By the heart, also, in the language of correspondence or analogy, as every one may see, is signified the will or the affections; and hence by God's touching

uth in the heart or the affections, by which men are sposed invariably to follow Saul, as the representative the Lord Jesus Christ, the only true King and Ruler in ⇒ spiritual Israel; in marked contrast to those who are presented by the men described in the following verse, hose cry is, "We will not have this man to reign over

(3) Lastly, we have to explain two or three of the symlical or significative phrases which are of frequent currence in the Old Testament histories, such as, "with e edge of the sword,” “in the sight, or in the eyes of" y one, &c. To take the first example here quoted, viz. : with the edge (Heb. mouth) of the sword,—a brief conleration of the meaning of the words contained in it, ll render its signification, as well as the reason of its ployment, manifest. A sword, in the language of corspondence, signifies the truth employed as an agent of iritual warfare and combat; as might be shown from merous instances in which the sword is mentioned in e Word; but a single one may suffice, which we will ke from the nineteenth chapter of Revelation, where e description of the rider upon the white horse occurs, whom it is said that "in righteousness doth he judge d make war 11 (v. 11), and that "out of his mouth goeth harp SWORD, that with it he should smite the nations.” 15). Now that the sword here mentioned denotes the vine Truth in a state of combat and warfare against sity and evil, is manifest from the name of the rider ing called "the WORD of God," as well as from the fact the sword's proceeding out of his mouth, which evidently notes the uttering or preaching of the truth of the Word. ence also we may see the propriety and meaning of the

Luke xix. 14, 27.

here likewise the utterance and proclamation of the truth, in combat against and opposition to error and wrong-doing. When therefore we meet, as we frequently do, with such an expression as "smiting the city with the edge, or mouth, of the sword," the meaning of it will, we think, now be apparent; viz.: destroying or refuting false doctrine-signified by a city-by combatting it by means of the spoken or preached Word.

Our second example is one also frequently met with in the Scriptures; viz.: in the sight, or in the eyes, of any one, as where it is said that a thing was pleasing, or right, or, it may be, was wrong or evil, in his eyes. We are so much accustomed to this form of expression in the Bible, -and the remark is true of many other phrases of this kind-that we are apt to overlook the strangeness of it, and even its entire inappropriateness, apparently, in many instances; as where it is sometimes said that the words or the conduct of one person was evil or displeasing in the eyes (i. e. in the opinion, or to the feelings,) of another, and where it is manifest something deeper is intended, like what we have indicated in the parenthesis above. But this deeper meaning has its ground in a deeper one still, which alone is adequate to account for the particular form of the expression, and to explain why the eyes, or the organ of vision, should be the one employed in preference to every other. And what the reason of the singular use of this organ in the phrase under consideration is, may appear from the spiritual signification of the eyes, as corresponding to the eyes, or sight, of the inner, spiritual man, which, as every one knows, is the understanding or the intellect. A thing's being right and pleasing, or displeasing and evil, in any one's eyes, therefore, plainly

le or repugnant, true or false, to the understandintellectual and rational faculty of the mind. third and last instance of this kind which we shall er here, is the very common one, but one which en the occasion of no little offense and scandal to minds-of "going a whoring after,"-used chiefly ∙rence to idolatry, and the seeking after and worng of false gods. The use of this expression, hows seen to be entirely appropriate and suitable, when rn that, in the spiritual idea, whoredom and fornisignifies mental and spiritual whoredom, which is bracing of and adherence to principles opposed to achings and precepts of Divine Truth. And since gods of the heathen nations are represented false nes and corrupt forms of worship, hence "going a ig after other gods" denotes to embrace and adopt loctrines and forms, and to adhere to them both in and life; a thought, which, it is manifest, no other of symbolical expression could so adequately and tly convey.

Application of the New Church View continued. The Gospels of the New Testament.

pass now to the examination of some of the diffis and peculiarities of the Evangelical history, which, have seen in the preceding chapters, offer some speeatures worthy of attention. And here likewise we follow the order laid down in the first chapter of this

First among the difficulties there referred to as perg to the New Testament history, are miraculous and erful relations,1 on which subject, however, sufficient t I. ch i. § 1 & 2. ad init.

one instance of which, given in the chapter referred to, is deserving of notice. We allude to the Forty-day's Temptation of our Saviour in the wilderness (Matt. iv. 1–11 ; Mark i. 12, 13; Luke iv. 1-11); which presents a chronological difficulty thus stated by Strauss in his Life of Jesus: "While, according to the synoptical writers," observes this critic, "Jesus, in the plenitude of the Spirit, just communicated to him at the Jordan, betakes himself in consequence of that communication, for forty days to the wilderness, where the temptation occurs, and then returns into Galilee; John, on the contrary, is silent concerning the temptation, and appears to suppose an interval of a few days only between the baptism of Jesus and his journey into Galilee; thus allowing no space for a six weeks' residence in the wilderness."1 Besides all this, we may remark, the number forty is the chief one of those mystical round numbers of frequent occurrence in the sacred histories, which are commonly supposed by critics to bear an unhistorical and unchronological character.2

What, then, is to be said in explanation of this difficulty? Perhaps as good an explanation as can be offered from the orthodox point of view is the following by Olshausen, which however, it will be observed, is only an evasion of the question. "The number forty," says this celebrated commentator, 66 was certainly a sacred number with the Jews; but it does not follow thence that it was not to be taken exactly; but rather the idea entertained by the Jews of the sacredness of certain numbers has itself a deeper foundation, which, taken as a general proposition, may be thus expressed: According to divine

6

1 Strauss, vol. i. 63. 2 Ibid. § 56 and note; cf. Rawlinson, ut supra, Lect. i. p. 38, and Essays and Reviews,' p. 67, Am. Ed.