THE REV. W. MASON'S REJOINDER TO THE

To the Editor.

REV. B. F. BARRETT'S REPLY.

Sir, I perceive in your January number the insertion of Mr. Barrett's papers, printed in the Cincinnati New Church Herald. These papers had been ineffectually offered previously to the New Jerusalem Messenger of New York, whose Editor had expressed approbation of the view of the Trinity opposed to that of Mr. Barrett. I beg, therefore, the insertion of the accompanying reply to Mr. Barrett's papers, which I despatched to the New Church Herald on the 21st November last. Permit me to introduce this communication with the following remarks, from which it will appear that the question before us is not a merely speculative one, but of a most serious practical character :—

It is well known that Swedenborg, when expressly defining the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, never deviates from the definition of the actual Essentials of the Divine Esse, the Divine Humanity, and the Divine Proceeding, like soul, body, and operation thence proceeding in man. On no occasion does he explain the Trinity allegorically as consisting of Love, Wisdom, and Power. The question at issue is this-Is such allegorical explanation, so copiously contended for by Mr. Barrett, authorised by Swedenborg? I affirm that it is not; nay more, that he has distinctly repudiated it to Mr. Hartley in the “ Nine Queries" which that reverend gentleman put to Swedenborg, subsequently to the publication of his last work, the True Christian Religion, to which he refers in the answer to the seventh Query. Mr. Hartley's third Query is as follows:

"THIRD QUESTION.

"Was not the Trinity in the Divine Nature always to be understood in this manner, namely, Divine Love, Divine Wisdom, and the quickening Spirit or Holy Proceeding?"

ANSWER.

"The DIVINE TRINITY in One Person IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD as [the Divine] Soul, Body, and Operation proceeding, which together constitute One Essence. There is likewise a trinity in every individual man, which together constitute one person, namely, soul, body, and operation proceeding. In the Lord the Trinity is infinite, and thus divine, for the Lord is Life Itself, even in respect to His Humanity, as He Himself teaches in John v. 26, xiv. 6, and elsewhere.”

Here Swedenborg had full opportunity afforded him clearly and distinctly to countenance, if so disposed, Mr. Hartley's proposed allegorical

Trinity, the same as that adopted by Mr. Barrett. Why, then, did not Swedenborg own it? Evidently because he did not approve it. He entirely to use a common but really very expressive phrase" gave it the go-by," and substituted for it another and totally different one,— an actual Trinity. In fact, he as positively repudiated the proposed allegorical Trinity as in the following comparative example:name John? Answer: His name is Thomas."

Is his

I cannot but believe that Mr. Barrett has never seen, or never noticed, this testimony of Mr. Hartley, which carries to my mind the fullest conviction that the allegorical Trinity was never taught or believed in by Swedenborg, as being implied in the Trinity of Father, Son; and Spirit. I beg to refer these "Nine Queries" to the attention of all who desire to state Swedenborg's doctrine of the Trinity with fidelity. I presume they may be had at our bookseller's. They are of the greatest

intrinsic worth.

But I have a still stronger objection to the allegorical Trinity. I have faintly expressed this objection in my former papers by saying, that IF this Trinity be legitimate, and the Lord's Humanity is still Divine TRUTH only, His Humanity was never FULLY glorified-and to this I now add, as a legitimate consequence, that the Humanity, in this case, not being FULLY Divine, to worship It, as is done by the New Church, is positive Idolatry. Could Mr. Barrett convince me that his allegorical Trinity is legitimate, I should then be as much opposed to the religious worship of the Person of the Lord Jesus, as I am now zealously for it. Let us to the proof.

In A. C. 6993 our author says, in unquestionable terms, as follows:"After the Lord even as to His Humanity was made Jehovah, that is, Divine Good, which was after His resurrection, then HE was no longer Divine TRUTH, but this proceeded from His Divine Good." It is clear, from this passage, that so long as the Lord-the Son-was Only the Divine TRUTH, His Person or Humanity was not "MADE JEHOVAH," and therefore could not be a proper Object of religious worship; for JEHOVAH is the only proper Object of worship, and to worship anything, however exalted, that is not Jehovah, is idolatry! It is well known that the New Church alone consistently worships the Person of the Lord Jesus, and why? Because this church alone believes that His Humanity is Divine, that is, FULLY glorified—“ made Divine GOOD," that is, "made Jehovah," and therefore "is no longer Divine TRUTH." The Old Church does not believe that the Lord's Humanity is Divine, and hence the universal repugnance of Protestants to offer direct religious worship to Jesus. If the New Church were to sanction the doctrine that the Lord,

that is, "the Son" in the Trinity, is NOW the Divine Truth only, and consequently not now the Divine Good, that is, not "made Jehovah," that church would then justly become obnoxious to the charge of idolatry! I know that the Old Church charges the New with contradictions in terms, in using such phrases as "Divine-Human," "made Divine,” “made Jehovah," but it is only by fully accepting these phrases (which involve no contradiction as we understand them), as expressive of our full and sincere belief, that we can clear ourselves of the allegation of idolatry. The Word fully bears us out where the Lord declared that "as the Father had Life in Himself, so it was given to the Son to have Life in Himself," that is, it was given to the Son to be "made Jehovah"- —“the Life”—the "Divine Good," or "Love."

It is really impossible to endeavour to UNDERSTAND the proposed allegorical Trinity without its assuming a ridiculous aspect; and thento describe it in words will unavoidably have the appearance of trying to place your opponent in a ridiculous point of view. This circumstance I have found some difficulty in dealing with, for I would wish, while doing justice to THE TRUTH, to treat the authors of all opinions with respect, whose opinions are honestly formed. If they are in error, they will have to bear the ill consequences which ever attend the loss of truth, and that is quite sorrow enough, without inflicting ridicule upon them in addition.

The following is my rejoinder to Mr. Barrett's reply:

'To the Editor of the New Church Herald.

'Sir, I observe in your paper of October 13th, 1860, Mr. Barrett's remarks in defence of his explanation of the Trinity as set forth to Mr. Beecher, and puporting to be that of Swedenborg.

'Mr. Barrett admits that God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, personally regarded (as if God, even when called "the Father," could be viewed otherwise than personally!) contained in His own Nature or Essence, prior to His Incarnation, the whole Trine of Divine Love, Wisdom, and Power. (T. C. R. 36.) He became "the Father" of Jesus Christ, and then, according to Mr. Barrett, as I understand him,— God,—the whole God, in becoming "the Father," divided His Essence of Love and Wisdom, becoming, as "the Father," only a part of God, only Love; and His "Only-begotten Son" became, and still is, the other part of His Essence, namely, Wisdom, and Wisdom only. In fact, it would seem from this, that on becoming "the Father," the preincarnate God, as "the Father," was no longer to be viewed personally, but only allegorically,-a figure of speech signifying Love, and Love

TO THE REV. B. F. BARRETT'S REPLY.

65

only! Mr. Barrett desires to be understood; he has no opinion of belief without understanding; and this is the result-an honest result, whatever he may think of it.

'Mr. Barrett endeavours to prove from the passages he cites, that the Father is Good or Love only, and the Son is Truth or Wisdom only. Now, what Swedenborg says in these passages, according to any fair construction of them, is this,—that the Eternal God—the Father-who, viewed in Himself, was from eternity Divine Love or Good, in all His attributes of willing, judging, and acting (and thus included the whole Trine), operated in and by His Divine Truth, or His Spirit from Himself, which was incarnate in His Humanity, (Luke i. 35.) to the end that the Humanity, then the Divine Truth in ultimates, might eventually become the Divine Good, or Himself in ultimates, being "glorified with the Father's own self," and thus having "Life in Himself, even as the Father had life in Himself."

All these passages, cited to prove that the Father is Good only, and the Son Truth only, apply to the Lord only while He was in the world, as Mr. Barrett must be aware; thus while the Son was only the Divine Truth in ultimates, and before the Humanity or Son had been made by glorification the Divine Good in ultimates; that is, they appl, to the period before the Lord's resurrection. To make these passages apply, as Mr. Barrett has made them, to the Son after He became the Divine Good in ultimates, that is, to the period following His resurrection, is a marvel of critical interpretation! I deny, then, the applicability of all Mr. Barrett's passages of Swedenborg, cited to prove that the Father is Good only, and the Son Truth only,—

'1st, Because Swedenborg never intended them to be so construed and applied.

2ndly, Because (as shewn in our Repository) they apply exclusively to the transition state between the Lord's conception and resurrection, before the Christian Trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit had been constituted, (John vii. 39.) and consequently can have no reference to the Christian Trinity as now constituted. The Son or Humanity could not be a Divine Essential before He was "made divine."

'3rdly, Because the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is to be drawn from the Literal sense of the Word, and the constructions relied upon by Mr. Barrett are all from the Spiritual sense only.

'4thly, Because the doctrine of the undivided Trinity cannot be fairly deduced by culling the meaning of its terms (as Mr. Barrett has done), from passages of Swedenborg, wherein the meaning of the third of those terms is not even mentioned, and why?—because then “ the Holy Spirit [Enl. Series.-No. 86, vol. viii.]

5

66

THE REV. W. MASON'S REJOINDER

was not"! proving that the explanation given does not relate to the Trinity at all.

5thly, Because, therefore, Mr. Barrett's mode of applying these passages is unbecoming a fair, intelligent, and honourable interpreter of any author.

'I admit the inutility of bandying compliments, but I cannot help applying to Mr. Barrett (which I do with great sincerity), the complimentary language he has applied to me, as follows:"I cannot help thinking that our brother across the water has misapprehended the import of some of the phraseology of Swedenborg; and under such misapprehension has cherished ideas, and put forth statements on this subject scarcely less irrational than the old dogma of three Persons in one God!* Therefore he cannot accept my explanation of the Trinity, which I have shown to be Swedenborg's own explanation of it." Nay more, Mr. Barrett instructs his readers as follows::- "When the Father is used to designate the Divine Being as a Person, undoubtedly the whole Trine is to be understood as included under that designation [of the Father], and the SAME may be said [Mr. B. proceeds] of the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Indeed! then we may say the Father has the whole Trine " as a Person," the Son has the whole Trine "as a Person," and the Holy Spirit has the whole Trine "as a Person;" but what is this but the revival of the doctrine of three Divine Persons in God? This I know is not what Mr. Barrett means, but this is what he has said— what he does mean I know not what I mean will appear in what follows, and this will save me the unpleasantness of rectifying certain mis-statements of my sayings. I will take Mr. Barrett's admission as a starting point-that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, possessed in Himself the Trine of Love, Wisdom, and Power. This cannot be questioned, because He is therein described as infinitely Good, Wise, and Powerful. From this Eternal God proceeded, prior to Incarnation, the "Spirit of God" which wrought creation-the Word by which all things were made, and called by E. S. the Divine Truth; and according to Swedenborg's axiom-(that that which proceeds is of the same nature as that from which it proceeds),—this "Spirit of God" was the Divine Proceeding from God's trinal Nature and Person—a proceeding therefore of Love, Wisdom, and Power. This Proceeding is called by

* 66 Scarcely less irrational," &c. And while Mr. Barrett says this of my belief in a Trinity, he says the same of that of Swedenborg in his T. C. R., which from the first I pointed to as my belief. If this be my belief, how does my rejection of Mr. Barrett's allegorical Trinity, which he offers in addition, make my belief an "irrational" belief?