Correspondence.

Auckland Star, Volume X, Issue 3010, 10 December 1879, Page 3

Correspondence.

■ REPLY TO MR EWINGTON.

(To the Editor.)

Sib,—l£ Mr Ewington -will turn to Borne of the moßtdißtingulahe(l coalmen tators-men of world•wide repute—ho will find that, shocking as is my interpretation to him aa a thinking man of tho apparition of Samuel, abler men than either he or 1 can ever hopo to be were unthinking enough to record and defend it. Whether that view is a correct ono or not I will not now discuss, but content myself 07 referring Mr Ewington to Matthew Henry, Bishop Patrick Willet, Matthew Poolo, and Brown, of Hod dingtori, -with a largo number o£ other reliable" interpreters of scripture, as sustaining this view. Other views of this strange occurrence I know are taken.- but no one is devoid of difficulty, at ilflast, bo I learn some great men (" laymen" and " ministers of religion") think. Perhaps tho best of modern commentaries ia tho Library Edition of '" Jamieson. Pauesett, and Brown." Afcer stating -he different theories of explication •Dr Jamleaon (though not agreeing himself with the one I have-adopted* modestly writes:— "Having submitted these different views we leave the decision of this puzzling narrative to the judgment? of the enlightened, and reflective reader."

i I am not prepared at present to accept Mr Ewington's dictum, much as it commends itself to him, though were I to do so it would make little difference to my argument.—Sours, &c, _ „ ALLEN W. \VRBB. P.S.—With respect to Mr Edfjer.l decline to have anything further to say to a eentleman who has from his fl st " challenge" to his " last words" shown an ability for word-twisting unparalleled in my experience. I content myself by statins for the assurance of my friends that I never read six pages of Swadenborg in my life, nor was any charge of heresy of any kind ever sustained or preferred against me, here or elsewhere.