own sect openly avow, and which they themselves, if they knew any thing of Scripture, must admit. If Mr. Cheever will read to his people what Professor Stuart says of inspiration in his Commentary on Romans, he will not find it necessary to represent or to misrepresent Mr. Norton on that subject. We are not aware that any Unitarian has gone farther than Mr. Stuart, and hope no one will. Even the following few lines are enough.

"To my own mind nothing appears more certain, than that inspiration, in any respect whatever, was not abiding and uniform with the Apostles or any of the primitive Christians. Jesus' knew no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth '; but all his followers, in so far as they were left without the special and miraculous guidance of the Spirit, committed more or less of error. This view of the subject frees it from many and most formidable difficulties. It assigns to the Saviour the preeminence which is justly due. It accounts for the mistakes and errors of his Apostles." *

We have now noticed the most important points, and the manner in which Mr. Cheever assails the book supposed to be reviewed. Having disposed of that, he occupies several pages in giving, himself, "a few principles of correct interpretation," of such a kind that we must be excused for speaking of them. We can hardly believe that their author wes serious in writing them down. Of all the words that we have ever seen, arranging themselves into sentences, and taking the name of "principles of interpretation," these are the strangest. If this man really holds and follows these rules, he has singular presumption verily in attempting to review other systems of interpretation, or pretending to be "a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” There never was a system framed, which more completely threw out the authority of God's word, and put in its place the will, the reason, the carnal sense of man, in the work of interpretation. It is said, to be sure, after other principles, that God is his own interpreter; and we must be willing to let God's word interpret itself." (p. 18.) But that is wholly subverted by the very first "grand principle," "The Bible should be interpreted in that manner which will most exalt God." (p. 13.) And

* Stuart's Commentary on Romans, pp. 78, 79.

again;-"The Bible should be interpreted, not only according to the whole character of God, from whom it emanated, but according to the whole character of man, for whom it was intended." (p. 17.) So we are to form our ideas of the nature of God and the character of man, where we can, as we please, from churches, systems, and creeds, or from nature, reason, and our own passions, before we approach the Bible; and then bring these ideas with us as "principles of correct interpretation" of that sacred volume! Is not this marvellous in a man who talks as Mr. Cheever does about others? His former assertions are not a greater violation of good morals, than these of good sense and truth. If there is one professor in any of the respectable Orthodox institutions in this country, who, if he speak sincerely, will not pronounce such rules worse than foolish, we have much overrated the intelligence or fairness of that class of men. Vehement charges of "superficiality" and "cold-blooded infidelity," proceeding from one who can write thus for the instruction of others, have a tenfold aggravation. Seriously do we commend their author to selfexamination, self-humiliation, study, and prayer. We believe he has sinned against God and man. We believe he has violated truth, charity, and common intelligence. We believe he has done that, which, if it were general, would break up society and religion; - certainly all good neighbourhood, generous emulation, and friendly or courteous discussion.

We have done with Mr. Cheever; but we wish to say a word of his patrons and friends, particularly the editors of "The Christian Spectator." We are surprised and mortified, to see them forfeiting the claims, which they have for some time been strengthening, to public confidence. Their course of late, with but few exceptions, has been far above every thing of this character, high-minded and Christian. We have read their pages with pleasure and profit. We simply ask them to consider what possible service they can render to learning or religion, to society, us, or themselves, by taking up the poor business of calling names, impugning motives, aspersing character, arraigning consciences, and dooming souls. Let them, and that portion of the community whom they serve, remember that Unitarians are men, that they have minds, that they have souls, and that their

rcligious character is a part of their moral character. We say nothing of equal rights; they may respect or sneer at them. We say nothing of human laws; let those also be violated, if they think it a light matter. But there are laws which they must respect, laws of God and Christ. If they have so much more than others of the fear of God before their eyes, let them, by all they reverence and all they would deprecate, refrain from calling those the enemies of God, who are seeking day by day to learn and do his will. If they have entered more deeply into the spirit of Christ, let them exhibit that spirit, and not brand as his betrayers and murderers, those who have sought and loved him as earnestly perhaps as themselves. Let them deliberate, before they denounce as infidels, and hypocrites, and demons, many whose lives and souls are engaged in the cause of Jesus. We say hypocrites and demons, for no less do they make us. If we are what they say, while we profess what we now do, we are hypocrites and demons. We mean

exactly what we say. We know all do not really regard us as such; we doubt if any do in their hearts. But to this extent fully do their writings in regard to us, and much of their preaching and conversation, go. And it is time they religiously considered it. Unitarianism has grown up and gathered strength from this sort of opposition more than from the efforts of Unitarians themselves. It is not for ourselves, therefore, but for religion, we plead; for humanity, conscience, truth, and Christ. We may plead for Orthodoxy For if any thing can deprive us of all respect for that system, if any thing can extinguish or chill our love of many, very many who uphold it, or destroy our confidence and admiration of some of its principles and measures, it will be the growing and at last irresistible conviction, that it does, of itself, contract the heart, deaden sympathy, embolden pride, and pardon, if it do not countenance and reward, that worst of spirits, which casts into the peaceful bosom of society and into the churches of God, "firebrands, arrows, and death."

too.

ART. V. The True Christian Religion, containing the Universal Theology of the New Church foretold by the Lord in Daniel vii. 13, 14, and in Revelation xxi. 1, 2. By EMANUEL SWEDENBORG, Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. A new Translation, from the Original Latin Edition, printed at Amsterdam in the year 1771. Boston: published by John Allen, School-Street. 1833.

MEN differ more in the tendency than in the degree of their intellectual powers. The inequalities of mental capacity among us are less than we are apt to suppose, but our habits of mind are infinitely various. One radical difference, absorbing all minor distinctions, may be considered as dividing all minds into two distinct classes, which, for want of a better designation, we shall call the discursive and the profound, those who glance at and over the objects of sense and intelligence, and those who look into and beyond them. Minds of the former class regard each object in its individual capacity, as a separate, independent existence, without considering the relation which it bears to other objects, or to some indwelling principle of which it is the exponent.

*

Such minds are ever prone to dwell on particulars, and are mostly incapable of generalizing. With them every truth is an insulated truth and stands upon its own foundation. Their knowledge is not a product of their own thinking, but is taken from others; it is received, not by process but by results, and is contained in formulas which they learn by rote. They are particularly fond of facts, for a knowledge of which they are often remarkable; and in controversy they are ever appealing to facts, using them not as expressions of a law, but as the foundation of a law, regarding

*The word profound is not intended to designate a greater degree of intelligence than is implied in the other term, but simply a different tendency, a tendency to look into and fathom. The word, intuitive, etymologically considered, would have better expressed our meaning, but that word is at present irrecoverably bound to a different signification.

them not according to their intrinsic, but according to their numerical value. A majority of facts, with them, decides every question. Their associations are not those of cause and effect, but of contiguity in space. According to the phrenologists, "locality" and "individuality" should be strongly marked in them. They make therefore good chronologers, excellent geographers, and lexicographers. In one word, persons of this class are generally excellent practical workmen, distinguished in secular matters for their good sense and ready wit. In religion they are apt to regard the letter rather than the spirit. The same tendency which disposes them to dwell on particulars, as above stated, leads them also to sensualize, to interpret the doctrines of revelation in their lowest sense, to lay undue stress upon forms, &c. They are at once credulous and incredulous, placing implicit confidence in the testimony of the majority, and very little in the testimony of individuals. Their religion is a matter of tradition and not a generation, or rather a regeneration, of the spirit within.

Unlike these, in all the abovementioned particulars, are the minds of that other class which we have denominated the profound. They view every thing in the light of some pervading law which is at once the cause and the end of its being. They regard all phenomena as the representatives of certain "noumena." Not content with the result, they endeavour to fathom the cause. Facts are of no value to them except as the expressions of some normal principle; and the whole sensible world is considered important only as the manifestation of that intelligible world, whose laws it is the business of their lives to study and to trace. To this class of minds the world is principally indebted for its philosophers and discoverers; and as the same propensity which leads to discoveries in the natural world, when carried beyond that world and applied to spiritual objects, seeks to fathom all mysteries, and to search out those hidden things of the spirit which God has not revealed to man, generally happens that minds of this class, in metaphysics and in religion, become mystics. We would fain rescue this word from the low and almost reproachful sense in which we fear it is generally understood. By the term mystic we understand not merely or necessarily a teacher of obscure doctrines, much less an obscure thinker; we understand by

so it