cause and effect, or soul, body and conduct, or will, understanding and act, or love, wisdom and use. Hence she believes that three divine principles are distinctly one in God, and thus that there is a trinity in unity: in other words, that the godhead consists of a trine, which is indispensable to every one, viz: an essential, a formative, and a spherical principle; and that these three are distinctly one in their subject, which, as to the divine, or a human, being, is one person.

The difference, then, between the old church and the new church is, that the former believes there is one God in a trinity of separate and distinct persons, while the latter believes there is a triune God in one person. Consequently, it is the peculiar and distinguishing trait of the new church, as respects the doctrine of the trinity, that, while the old church believes the godhead is in three separate and distinct persons, she holds that the Lord is constituted by three divine principles, which are three essential requisites of one person.

Thus we trust we have distinctly, because distinctively, set forth our view of the trinity. Be it then clearly understood, that we do not contend for a trinity of separate or individually and functionally distinct divine existences, but, for a threefold distinction in the essential constituents of the one Divine Being.

II. The Divine Trinity.-We have assumed the exist ence and unity of God; and we have distinctly stated our view of the divine trinity. We proceed in this paper to show, from the Word, that there is a trinity in the one God.

The passages of Scripture which assert in just so many words that there is a triple principle in the godhead, are not numerous. But many passages prove this truth inferentially. And the whole Word is full of it in its spiritual meaning. But in view of the letter of the Word we would premise, that the Bible must be consistent; and therefore, the unequivocal meaning of one passage cannot be contradicted by the real meaning of any other, however seemingly conflicting they may be. Hence, if we can deduce the existence of a trinity from a single passage of the Word in the letter, we shall claim to have attained our end.

Now, in our view, the existence of such a trinity as we contend for is shown most unequivocally in this passage, from Genesis xviii. 1-5, "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham in the plains of Mamre and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; and he lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to

meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself towards the ground, and said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant: let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree; and I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on; for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said."

To understand this passage fully, we should see it in its spiritual sense. But it would be contrary to our design in these papers, to unfold these verses as to their entire spiritual import. It is sufficient for our present purpose to direct attention to the fact which they state, that the Lord appeared to Abraham under the representative and significative personification of three men. For on this fact we ground our argument.

But in remarking upon these verses we must regard them as having a spiritual meaning, although we do not undertake to show fully what that meaning specifically is. For it is only from this spiritual ground that the true meaning of their literal sense can be seen. We at once, then, take the ground that what Abraham here saw, was a vision. This is manifest from the fact, that angels, as they are spiritual beings, cannot be seen by the reflection of natural light. And hence Abraham could not have seen them with his natural eyes. It was a vision similar to those which the prophets had—similar to to that of the three disciples when they saw the Lord transfigured on the mount-similar to that of Mary Magdalene, in which she saw "two angels in white, sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain." (John, xx. 12.) It was similar also to those visions that the disciples had of our Lord, in which they communed and ate with him after his ascension from the sepulchre. And it was likewise similar to the visions of the martyred Stephen and of St. John. The things beheld by these persons respectively were objects seen in the light of heaven or the spiritual world, thus by the opening of the spiritual sight. For in the case of Stephen it is said that he saw the heavens opened, and in the case of St. John it is expressly said he was "in the spirit on the Lord's day." What they saw, therefore, was in spiritual and not in natural vision. And we may presume it was the same in the case of Abraham and the rest, inasmuch as the objects which they saw were spiritual objects.

But as the spiritual sight can be opened in a state of bodily

wakefulness, and consists in the mind's consciousness being raised above the sphere of natural into the sphere of spiritual existences, while the natural plane of the mind is quiescent,as in a reverie,-the objects seen by the spiritual eye would seem, to a person not aware of the fact that there is a spiritual sight distinct from the natural sight and that his spiritual sight was opened, as existing in the natural world: much the same as when a person has had a remarkably impressive dream, he can hardly divest himself of the notion that the things seen and heard in the dream have been actual natural occurrences. The only difference is, that, in the case of the dream, the transition from sleep to wakefulness, or from bodily quiescence to bodily activity, makes the person sensible of his two states of consciousness, and thus enables him to discriminate between them; whereas, in the case of the visions, the spiritual sight passing through the natural sight, which is now quiescent or altogether subservient, the person has nothing to mark the two states of his consciousness, and hence the spiritual objects seem to be natural objects. And thus, when those spiritual objects were persons, the circumstance of the spiritual eye being opened and closed would be attended by the natural appearance of spiritual beings coming and departing. Thus, "when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, and Jesus came and stood in the midst," (John, xx. 19,) it doubtless appeared to his disciples as a natural event, and they seemed to see him with their natural eyes; but it was manifestly a spiritual vision, because the walls of the room where they were assembled, which did obstruct their natural sight, were no obstruction to the Lord's apparent natural entrance. So in the case of Abraham, the approach of the Lord to him in the form of three men appeared to him as a natural event; when in fact it was a spiritual event, occurring to the view of his spiritual sight. For Jehovah appeared to him under angelic forms, which, being spiritual, evidently could not have been seen naturally. And as Abraham probably was not aware that he saw by the opening of his spiritual sight, and thus rested in the natural appearance; hence it is recorded as an historical event, that three men stood before him as he sat in his tent door; and it is related that he performed natural offices to them. It is however manifest that all this must have been a spiritual occurrence of the merely mental world, seen by Abraham's spiritual eyes; and was but a representative imaging of divine and spiritual things, intended for the church in all ages. For these things, in common with other historical events which

are recorded in the Old Testament, "happened," as Paul says, "for ensamples, and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." (1 Cor. x. 11.)

The end of the Divine Being in giving man a revelation, is the salvation of his soul. He could not therefore have given the Bible simply as an historical relation of events which took place in the early ages of the world: for how can the mere knowledge of an historical event avail to the soul's salvation? But when the historical event is supposed to be representative of spiritual and divine realities, and is supposed to be related for the purpose of embodying those realities in sensible images and of thereby representing them to the human mind, so that when those sensible images are in the mind of man, angels can be associated with him thereby; we can very readily conceive how the divine end in giving that relation would be attained. For those spiritual and divine realities, when so communicated to the soul of man through angelic influence, might, by their enlightening and purifying effects on his will and understanding, save those faculties of his mind from evil and false principles. We say, then, that this historical event which is related as having occurred to Abraham in this world, was a representative imaging of divine and spiritual things intended for the church in all ages. We call it a representative imaging; for though these might have been, and doubtless were, actual angelic beings, still they were a representative personification of the Lord. For it is said "the Lord appeared unto him” -"and he lifted up his eyes and looked, and lo, three men stood by him, and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door and bowed himself toward the ground, and said, my Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant." All which shows that

these three men were characters representative of the one God. They were representative, because they purported to be the Lord, who is God; but were not actually God, for Abraham saw them, and "no man hath seen God at any time." (John, i. 18.) And they were representative of the one God, because Abraham addressed them as one. He calls them my Lord; and throughout the chapter they are called the Lord, and in most instances spoken of in the singular number. Thus in the last verse it is said, "And the Lord went his way as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place." We may here observe, incidentally, that this expression, "Abraham returned unto his place," is a further proof of Abraham's having been in a spiritual state when he

saw the Lord as three men: for it denotes that he came again into his previous natural state. As before, his transition from a natural to a spiritual state was attended by the circumstance of the Lord's appearing, so here, his return to a natural state is accompanied by the appearance of the Lord's going away. Now this is our argument. Abraham saw the Lord representatively; for he could not see the Lord himself and live. (Exod. xxxiii. 20.) But a representation of the Lord must have corresponded to his nature; or else, it could not have brought him forth to view. Now this representation of the Lord presented him as three men. Therefore, there is something threefold in his nature. And thus we prove there is in God a trinity. Were there not, then, another text in Scripture, on this alone we would boldly take our stand and confidently proclaim a trinity in God!

But, say the Tripersonalists, Granted. We too proclaim. that there is a trinity in God, and bring this same passage to prove that this is a trinity of persons. For, if this representation indicates the Lord's nature,-as he is represented by three men, and three men are three persons, therefore, the Lord in his nature is three persons. No! we answer. This represen. tation only indicates that there are in the Lord's nature three constituent principles. For the Word of God is so written that it uses sensible forms to represent and signify spiritual principles in the church and heaven, or divine principles in God. And the person of a man is his outward form. Hence his person must represent his inward principles. And when the forms or persons of men are used in the Word to represent the Deity, they represent the principles which constitute him. Thus Moses represented the Lord as to his divine law, or as to the principle of truth. Aaron represented the Lord as a divine priest, or as to the principle of goodness. David represented the Lord as a divine king, or as a principle of truth ruling and governing the refractory passions of men by bringing them into obedience to its dictates. So universally a form or person is never used in the Word simply to suggest an idea of itself and no more, but to involve and present some principle to which it corresponds. This is the case in the passage before us. Therefore, when the Lord was presented as three men, it did not indicate that he was three men in form, but that there were in his nature three principles which could be so represented. So when the Lord is called a shield and buckler, it is not meant that he is in that form, but that he effects that for the spirit of him who trusts in