which all true religion is erected. I shall also take it for granted, that, though the word "Trinity" does not occur in scripture, we repeatedly find the idea properly intended by that term; since we every where read, in the New Testament, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as equally concerned in the great work of man's salvation. I shall further assume, that there are a great many passages likewise which ascribe Divinity to the Lord Jesus Christ: for even the deniers of his divinity admit this, though, not knowing how to reconcile this doctrine with that of the unity, they endeavour to explain away their force. On the admission, then, that these three doctrines are explicitly affirmed in scripture-so affirmed that they naturally result from the sense of the words themselves; how are they to be combined into one coherent sentiment? The fundamental doctrine of the Divine Unity implies, that the doctrine of the Divine Trinity must not be so strained as to be set at variance therewith, as is done when the Trinity is understood to be a trinity of separate persons in the usual acceptation of that term. It must then be a trinity of Essential Principles,— of Constituent Elements (so to speak, for want of better terms,) forming together One Person. And if the Divinity of Jesus Christ is also certain, thus if he is God at all, and yet God is but One, who can he be but that One Person? In him, as he decidedly declares, the Father dwelleth: "the Father, that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works :"-he must then be the person of the Father. From him, or out of him from the Father within him, as he also declares, the Holy Ghost proceedeth: "the comforter,-whom I will send unto you from the Father" to represent, also, his sending of which, "he breathed on them, and said unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost." Does it not then appear, that, properly, the Father is the Divine Essence; the Son, the Manifestation of that Essence in a Personal Form; and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifying Energy and Influence-the Divine Life-thence proceeding to operate the graces of salvation in the human mind? This is a general view of the Doctrine of the New Church upon this subject: I do not propose here to go at large into the direct proof of it but I will shape my remarks so as to meet all the objections which, as far as I am aware, can be raised against it. Thus, though by a different method, I trust we shall arrive at complete proof of the doctrine proposed.

"The objections to the doctrine that the whole Divine Trinity is centered in the Lord Jesus Christ, whose Person is thus the Person of the Father, are chiefly drawn from these two sources: First, from the belief, that the Being who became incarnate was a Son of God born from eternity: here, therefore, I shall endeavour to shew, that the phrase, Son of God, is the proper title of the Humanity born in time, and that the Being who assumed that

Humanity was the one Jehovah: Secondly, objections are raised from the fact, that Jesus Christ, while in the world, sometimes spoke as if the Father were a separate Being from Himself: here, therefore, I shall endeavour to shew, that, while in the world, he was engaged in the work of glorifying his Humanity, or making it divine, as part of his great work of redemption: thus that so long as he was in the world there was a part of his nature which was not divine; but that the work of glorifying the whole was completed at his resurrection and ascension; that all belonging to him was then divine; and that thus he now ever liveth and reigneth, with the Father an Indivisible One, the only God of heaven and earth.

“I. I am then, first, to meet the objections arising out of the belief, that the Being who became incarnate was a son of God born from eternity, by shewing, that the phrase, Son of God, is the proper title of the Humanity born in time, and that the Being who assumed it was the One Jehovah.

"The idea of a Son of God born from eternity includes such a contradiction in terms, that, if those who entertain it will pardon the remark, we may well wonder how it could ever have found a propounder; especially when, on searching the scriptures, we discover, that nothing whatever countenancing such a notion is there to be found. Had there been such a Being as a Son of God existing from eternity, governing the universe in conjunction with his Father, and the Head and particular Ruler of the church, is it to be supposed, that the church could have been left, for four thousand years, in total ignorance of his existence? Yet such is incontrovertibly the fact. The Old Testament, which contains the records of all the churches that ever appeared on this globe, from the creation till the coming of the Lord, never once speaks of a Son of God as then actually existing it speaks indeed, prophetically, of a Son of God who, in the fulness of time, was to be born, but never makes the slightest allusion to a Son of God then born already.

"Seeing then that Moses and the prophets give us no information about a proper Son of God as existing when that part of the Divine Code was composed, we must come to the New Testament for instruction; where the term is often used, and always in reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. And of all the places in which it here occurs, perhaps that in Luke i. 35, is best adapted to convey a full insight into its meaning. It is there applied by the angel Gabriel to the Lord Jesus Christ at his birth, or rather, prior to his birth, in a manner which plainly intimates that there was no Son of God before. In the other gospels, this epithet is given to Jesus Christ, or is assumed by him: but in this passage of Luke we learn the origin of the title, and the reason of it.

Had there been a Son of God already existing, and it was this which became incarnate and was born of the virgin, we undoubtedly should have had some intimation of it when the angel announced to her the approaching event. He surely would have made some mention of the Being who was about to assume Humanity by her means. He would not merely have told her, that that Holy Thing which should be born of her should be called the Son of God; but, that the Son of God who had existed from eternity, was about, by her instrumentality, to come into the world. No such thing. He says: "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Here is express mention of the Holy Ghost, and of the Highest, or Father, as operating in the divine conception but nothing is said of a Son from eternity as being in any way concerned: and the omission most plainly implies, what all the perceptions of common sense must be outraged before we can doubt, that the Son does not assist to produce himself, nor exist before he is born. The Holy Thing that was to be born, it is said, should be called the Son of God; and so called, not because it had already been born from eternity, but because (what else does the illative particle, "therefore," intend?-because) it was now first conceived of the Holy Ghost and the Father.

Here, also, another circumstance which it is impossible for the tripersonalist to reconcile with his creed: that the Holy Ghost, as well as the Highest or Father, is represented as standing in the relation of a parent to the Son of God. It is commonly believed, that the Holy Ghost is a distinct personal being, separate from both the Father and the Son: if so, then, according to the angel Gabriel, the Son had two distinct fathers. The Athanasian creed says, that "the Son is of the Father alone, neither made, nor created, but begotten :" but the angel Gabriel positively declares, that the Son is of the Holy Ghost and the Highest, begotten alike of both. How evident then it is, that, before

we can have clear and consistent notions of the Divine Incarnation, we must not only dismiss from our minds the wild belief of a Son of God born from eternity, but also, that equally extravagant and unscriptural notion, the separate personality of the Holy Ghost.

"The whole subject, however, loses its imputed character of incomprehensibility, and becomes, agreeably to the divine promise, plain; and the words of the angel Gabriel, in particular, become easy to understand; when we know that the trinity in the Divine Nature does not consist of three Persons, but of three Principles

or Elements in one Person. "The Highest," which is the term used by the angel instead of "the Father," most clearly denotes the Inmost Principle of Deity, or the Essence of the Divine Nature. Unquestionably, God is called the Highest or Most High, not in reference to any station which he occupies in space; for God is independent of space, and no more stationed in one place than in another. He who is omnipresent, cannot literally be either high or low. The reason then of his title of Most High, is, because he is the Inmost, being every where present as the inmost source of the life and existence of all things. And, with respect to the three Essentials of his own Nature, it must be his Inmost Divinity which is called the Highest. So when, elsewhere, this Inmost Principle is called the Father, it is, because the essence of Deity is Love, and Love is the Great Parent of all. The Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, in like manner, is not a separate Person, but is the Divine Emanation of influences and energies proceeding from the Divine Being, by which all things are kept in existence, and especially by which the graces of heavenly life are imparted to human minds. Much the same is meant by the Power of the Highest as by the Holy Spirit: for as the Highest denotes the Divine Essence, so the Power of the Highest denotes the influence and operation thence proceeding; only there is this difference in the import of the two phrases; that the Holy Spirit means the Divine Emanation of life and influence more with respect to the Divine Truth and Wisdom, and the Power of the Highest is the same Divine Emanation more with reference to the Divine Goodness and Love. What then can be "that Holy Thing," "the Son of God," conceived by the energy of these two Principles within the sphere of Humanity, but themselves, and consequently the Highest with them, brought into open manifestation, concentrated in a Divine Human Forin, and thus adapted to be an Object both of the love and the perceptions of finite and infirm human minds?

"The consequence of this assumption of Humanity by Jehovah, was, the redemption of mankind, by the subjugation of the powers of hell, which could not otherwise have been approached and conquered; and the communication of saving energies for the restoration of fallen man, with an efficacy which could no otherwise be obtained.

"We may now have advanced as much as was necessary to elucidate this branch of our argument. We were to meet the objections arising out of the belief, that the Being who became incarnate was a Son of God born from eternity, by shewing, that the phrase, Son of God, is the proper title of the Humanity born in time, and that the Being who assumed it was the One Jehovah.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.

JOHN, I. 14.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory,— the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,-full of grace and truth.

AMONG the multitude of questions which arise concerning this mysterious subject, the first is-What is the Word? In a literal sense, words are natural, material things, produced by our natural bodily organs. And since He that was made flesh, was called the Word, for the purpose of giving us some knowledge concerning what He was, we may infer that what words are, in relation to our bodily organs of speech-what thoughts are, with our spirits-such the Word is with God. Hence, it may appear that the Word is divine truth; that it is the wisdom of divine love; that it is the adaptation and design in creation; that it is the order of divine providence; that it is the mode or means of the divine government. With this definition, there is an agreement of what is said concerning the Word, viz. that it was in the beginning; that it was with God; that it was God; that all things were made by Him; that in Him was the life, which was the light of men; that He was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world; that unto those who received Him there was given power to become the sons of God. All these things can be said of the divine truth, and of that only; whence it is evident, that divine truth is what is signified by the Word.

Another inquiry which naturally arises, is, concerning the mode in which that which is called the Word existed and operated upon man before it was written or made flesh. To those who have come to any perception of the truth, it is well known that truth itself is something quite distinct from the propositions, commandments, and historical narratives, by means of which we come to the knowledge of it. These forms are given to it to make it visible to the more external faculties of those who are spiritually blind, and intelligible to those who have not the power of perceiving the thing itself. They are forerunners and heralds to prepare the way of his coming. Now, in the early ages of the world, in the infancy of mankind, men in general had no need of these external, verbal forms, to guide them into the apprehension and perception of the truth. Instead of the command to love the Lord with all the heart, or the proposition that we ought to do so, followed by the reasons why, they had this truth inspired through the heart, and revealed to them in the affection to do so. They needed no instruction from without-no authority from aboveand no reasons to persuade; for to what is good they had a yea,

VOL. I.NO. III.

11