127 THEOLOGY, INTELLECT, AND IMAGINATION. DIALOGUE II. O. C. When we parted, I promised to give my best attention to your remarks on the important subject of the three-fold character of the Divine Being since his incarnation, or as you express it, of the Trinity in the Lord Jesus Christ. You will not be surprised, I dare say, to learn that I find great difficulty in surmounting the impression which has been gathering strength from successive perusals of the Gospels from childhood, of the distinct personality of the Father and the Son. My conclusions from our former conversation have satisfied me, that if they are two distinct persons, they cannot be Divine Persons, because I see clearly that a Divine Person is identical with a God, notwithstanding all the hair-splitting that has been attempted to prove a difference. But then there is the Unitarian scheme, which supposes two distinct persons, the Father, Divine, the Son, human: one God, and one man. And although I cannot say that I favour this scheme exactly, having always had a strong prepossession in favour of the Divinity of Christ, my thoughts having been detached from the belief of two Divine persons, seem to find a new leaning to two Persons, one of them not Divine. This, I presume, may be owing to a natural hesitation to adopt the New Church explanation unreservedly and at once. We instinctively feel, you know, a leaning to the particulars of a former opinion; a sort of centripetal prejudice intended to keep us from being carried off too suddenly by the centrifugal force of progress and change. Thus you see I am oscillating between the Unitarian and New Church views the former seem to attract me by their apparently greater simplicity and adaptation to all sorts of minds, while your views seem suited only to persons of a deep-thinking philosophical character. Still, for these views, as I already see, the Scriptures more powerfully plead by the very pointed testimony they afford to the Divinity of Jesus, or to avoid a Unitarian equivocation, I would rather say, the Deity of Jesus. Now, notwithstanding that I am not yet, properly speaking, a convert to the New Church system, I have found myself sufficiently interested to speak favouringly of it to my friend S., a Unitarian; and also to my friend P., a Trinitarian, or as you would denominate him, a Tripersonalist. But being in some uncertainty myself, I, of course, do not feel quite at home in arguing in favour of the new sentiments. Perhaps you can give me some suggestions suited to my differing antagonists, if I may so call them. N. C. I will first remark that I am not surprised at your newly kindled feeling towards Unitarians, notwithstanding that the New Church views are more directly opposed to theirs than are the Tripersonal views, since the Unitarian says that Jesus Christ is a merely human person; while the Tripersonalist says, He is one of three Divine Persons; and the New Church, in opposition to both, and especially the Unitarian, believes He is the ONLY Divine Person. The Unitarian view, taken by itself, is consistent with reason, even if it be, as we think it is, and as you have hitherto thought it, an unfair, and, indeed, an irrational interpretation of the Scripture passages relating to the subject. And probably, therefore, owing to the appearance of distinct personality in the Gospels, some will tarry in that interpretation long after the tri-personal scheme has become an historical marvel. The question as regards your Unitarian friend, is,—Is he a high or a low Unitarian? for in this sect all phases of opinion are to be met with. It is useless to argue with him if he be a high Unitarian, for this class turns a deaf ear to the Scripture evidences of the Lord's deity; but the Channing school are so far impressed with reverence for those evidences, as frequently to use language not more consistent with reason than that of Tripersonalists, the fact being that the New Church view is alone perfectly and equally rational and Scriptural, because it denies any kind of plurality of Person to the Father and Son, taking the Lord's words absolutely, "I and my Father ARE ONE." Thus, a Unitarian minister avowed to me his belief in the Omnipotence, Omnipresence, and Omniscience of Jesus; being astonished at this admission, I said-you admit, then, that He is the only God. No, said he, not so, he has these attributes by delegation from the only God, being the impersonation of God. If your Unitarian friend be of this school, you may ask him whether he believes that Jesus has an individual mind distinct from the mind of God. If he says No, then his view is not distinguishable from that of the New Church: if he says Yes, then ask him if the mind of Jesus be a Divine Mind. If he says Yes, shew that in that case He must be a Divine Person; but if he believes the mind of Jesus to be human and finite, ask him how it can be possible for infinite attributes to be given or delegated to a finite mind, and whether the belief of this is less questionable than the belief that the whole ocean can be contained in a tea-cup. Shew him the impossibility of delegating divine powers to a finite receptacle without the annihilation of that finite individuality, and its absorption into the Divine source of being. Ask him whether an impersonation of deity means a merely finite passive existence; for if it does, it can have no individuality, and therefore instead of being "king of kings, and lord of lords," it ranks lower than, and is, indeed, personally inferior to, the insect, to which the Creator has given individual existence and a consciousness of identity distinct from every other identity, divine or human. If the so-called "impersonation" implies an individual mental existence, possessing a distinct will and understanding separate from God, it cannot be distinct from the Divine Mind if it possesses the indivisible and therefore incommunicable attributes above mentioned; but if it be affirmed that the finite mental individuality of Jesus has received Divine attributes without finiting them by reception, and therefore is in the exercise of them without diminution, it is sufficient to say that that view implies such contradictions as amount to impossibility. It cannot be true. It may seem a strange thing to say, but I believe I am right when I say it, that the boasted rationality of the Unitarian's creed can only be maintained by their obstinately remaining totally unscriptural; for just so far as they listen to Scripture, they diverge towards the irrationality of Tripersonalists, by believing in two Persons, each possessing Divine attributes, and therefore Divine, the one by origin, and the other by delegation. Nothing can make them rational and Scriptural equally and fully, but the belief in One Person only-the Ferson of God-the Divine invested with the Human, as a soul with its body. Whenever, then, Jesus is mentioned to you as the impersonation of Deity, the first question to be asked is,-Define this impersonation. Is it an individual mind, free to act from itself? And is that distinct mind Infinite, or finite? If Infinite, how can it be distinguished from a separate Divine Person? if finite, how can it contain the fulness of the Godhead? If the impersonation be not a distinct personal mind individually separate from God, it must mean the very Person of God, and this accords with the New Church view. 0. C. Thank you; thank you. If my friend can open his mind to consider these arguments; if, as Elisha said to Job, his "ear can try words, as the mouth tastes meat;" and if, above all, his reverence for Scripture testimony be of the heart, and not of the lips only, some new light may find admission into his mind. And now what course shall I take with my Trinitarian friend? N. C. You may have observed, and if not it may be well to call your attention to the fact, that the difficulty of surmounting the appearance in the Gospels of distinctness of personality in the Father and Son, lies in the difficulty felt by most persons in rising from the sensuous ideas of the imagination, to the more interior and lucid perceptions of the intellect. With both your friends this will probably be the main N. S. NO. 148.-VOL. XIII. R difficulty. You will also perceive that I am not arguing this question on grounds of Scripture so much as on those of reason. I leave to you, by the help of our various publications presenting Scripture proofs of our doctrines, to avail yourself of the assistance therein abundantly afforded. O. C. Do so. That course will be quite agreeable to me. I want to know how to reason with my friends so as to produce some conviction of the defects of their own views both as regards reason, and Scripture interpretation. Now what am I to say to my Trinitarian friend? N. C. I have found it productive of good, in the first instance, to lead the parties to whom I am introducing our doctrines, to feel the deficiency of their own convictions, by asking questions which, as I expected, they found themselves unable to answer; but for which an answer should and would have been ready, if their minds had been formed on a really rational basis. When persons find, being self-convicted, that their faith does not stand on such a foundation of rockcrystal as they imagined, they are moved, even for consistency's sake, to lend a more willing ear than they otherwise would. Question your friend therefore in the following manner ::- You say that you believe that in God there are three Divine Persons, all of one essence or substance may I ask what is your definition of a Person, and also of the word essence or substance? and whether there is any individual distinction to divide the essence of one from the essence of the other? Here your friend will probably feel himself at fault. Possibly he may seek refuge in the cave of mystery in order to get out of your way. If, however, his manliness precludes this shift, you may proceed to relieve his confusion by asking him whether he firmly believes in the government of the universe by One Supreme Infinite Mind, that is, by One Divine Will and One Divine Understanding. If he should reply affirmatively, then ask him how he can conceive of this One indivisible mind being divided between Three Persons or distinct individuals? and since this is impossible in the case of three human persons, how it can be less so with three Divine Persons? Ask him whether the same essence which belongs to each of the three means the same mind; if not, what does it mean? also, since a man's essence means the human character of his soul or mind, that is, of his will and understanding,how the essence in each Divine Person can be anything but a distinct personal mind, or will and understanding; and if so, how it is possible to distinguish between three Divine minds and individual wills, and three gods? I find that all Christians, whether Unitarian or Trinitarian, think of God, while their minds are not intent on dogmatic theology, precisely in the same manner as the New Church (with the exception of not thinking of God as Jesus Christ or God in his human form), namely, as one superintending, infinite, indivisible MIND; and so far Trinitarians acknowledge One Divine Mind only; but presently the Three Divine Persons being adverted to in thought, they immediately add dogmatically two more Divine Minds (the Divine Minds of their Second and Third Divine Persons) to the One Divine Mind first thought of as the SOLE SELF-EXISTENT MIND! Thus they oscillate between the belief of One Divine Mind and Three Divine Minds, and consequently between the idea of One God and the idea of three Gods, so that it may be said, without any departure from charity or truth, that they do not know whether they believe in One Divine Mind or in Three Divine Minds; for, in fact, at one time they think of one, and at another time of two, or three, so that their answer, unhesitatingly spoken out, would be just such as their present humour dictated, and consequently it might be ONE to-day; or Two or THREE to-morrow! Certain it is, that the Three distinct Persons are thought of as distinct individual agents, with each a distinct sphere of agency; each acting from his own distinct individual Personality, that is, from his own proper individual Divine Mind. Ask your Trinitarian friend how he can reconcile this with the belief in God as One Individual Infinite Mind,-One Divine Will and One Divine Understanding. He must then either shirk the question, and shrink back into primeval darkness, or suffer his candid and teachable spirit to lead him on to the perception of the light of the New Church. O. C. From the tenor of your suggestions I see still more clearly the distinction you pointed out between the sensuous perceptions of the imagination and the higher activities of the intellect. Indeed, my short acquaintance with your system convinces me, that the basis of both the Unitarian and the Trinitarian doctrines lies in the appearance presented in the Gospels, of the Father and Son being two Persons, the Person of the former being suggested to the imagination by the associations connected with the descriptive relational term “ Father," and the latter impressed by the sensuous narrative of the personal actions of the Son. As yet a teacher has been wanting to bring out into a clear and defined intellectual form the saying of Paul, that in Jesus Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Even highly intelligent individuals are content to remain in their imaginative faith of Three veritable Divine Persons, without taking the first intellectual step towards an intellectual faith, by inquiring whether these Three Persons have ONE DIVINE MIND mysteriously distributed amongst or divided between |