subservient to higher objects. His aim has been to expose the folly-he may add, the wickedness-of sacrificing the higher interests of themselves and their children for these questionable benefits: FOR WHAT

66

SHALL A MAN BE PROFITED, IF HE GAIN THE WHOLE WORLD, AND LOSE HIS OWN SOUL?"

Stoneclough, December.

W. W.

THE REV. B. F. BARRETT'S REPLY TO THE REV. W. MASON ON THE DIVINE TRINITY.*

To the Editor of the Intellectual Repository.

DEAR SIR,-In the late August number of your magazine, I notice an article from the pen of the Rev. Wm. Mason, criticising, with some severity, my statement of the doctrine of the Divine Trinity, in my letters addressed to Henry Ward Beecher, which he characterizes as "empirical" and "altogether inaccurate." I will, therefore, with your permission, reply to him; and think I shall be able to show that I have ample warrant from the writings of the illumined Swedenborg, for my statement and illustrations of the Trinity.

* This Reply first appeared in the "New Church Herald," for November 3rd, and is, no doubt, the paper which, from the above letter, Mr. Barrett intended also for this periodical. We have accordingly inserted it, omitting a few personal remarks on the editor, which do not belong to the argument. We take this opportunity of thanking the editor of the Herald, Mr. Hough, for his kindness in regularly sending us his paper; it is always a great treat, and we hope it will continue to increase in its circulation, and, under the Lord's Providence, be a source of comfort and of internal satisfaction to himself, as it is of useful instruction to others. We trust that he regularly receives the Intellectual Repository in return. We cannot conclude this note, without correcting a mistranslation, which both Mr. Barrett and Mr. Mason have quoted from A.C. 6945. It is a mis-translation, which we trust has been corrected in the more recent editions of the A. C. The translation as quoted is as follows:-"The Divine Human is nothing but the Divine Truth which proceeds from Himself." Whereas, the true version is "The Divine Human [cannot appear] but by the Divine Truth which proceeds from Himself." Thus the Divine Human is distinguished from the Truth which proceeds from it, as light proceeding from the sun is distinguished from the fire which is in the sun. The entire sentence in the original, is this: Quod visus Jehovah sit apparitio Divini Domini in Humano Ipsius, patet etiam ex eo, quod Ipsius Divinum non apparere queat alicui homini, ne quidem Angelo, nisi per Divinum Humanum; et Divinum Humanum non nisi quam per Divinum Verum quod procedit ab Ipso.-EDITOR.

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

13

But, I write now to make my apology to Mr, Mason, and express my regret for what has, naturally enough, seemed to him a piece of incivility on my part. I allude to my failure to take any notice of his last letter, since published in your columns. For that seeming, though unintentional neglect, I now beg Mr. Mason's pardon. His letter came at a time when I was very busy; and, although I dread carrying on controversies by letter, for they generally prove as unprofitable as they are tedious, it was my intention to have replied to Mr. Mason. But, a multiplicity of engagements, together with a habit of procrastination, led me at first to postpone writing him; until at last, his letter having been placed on file, the matter quite slipped my memory.

As to my reference to his first letter, on the cover of the "Swedenborgian," in notices "to Correspondents," I am unable to see the impropriety of that. True, the letter was not sent for publication; nor did I publish any portion of it, nor even give the writer's name. I gave his initials,-thanked him for the freedom with which he had written, expressed my inability to perceive the justness of his criticism, and referred him to certain paragraphs in the writings of Swedenborg, which I thought ought to convince him that my statement of the doctrine of the Trinity was not inaccurate, as he had charged. If there was any impropriety in this, I am unable to see it, and therefore, have no apology to offer for it. This is all I wish to say now.-I remain, yours truly, B. F. BARRETT.

REV. Mr. MASON ON THE TRINITY.

Mr. Mason, in his communication to the Intellectual Repository, characterises my explanation of the Divine Trinity as an "empirical statement" of the doctrine, "unjustifiable," "altogether inaccurate," "not the doctrine set forth by Swedenborg," in short, a "deistical, Pagan, or Jewish Trinity." With all due deference to Mr. Mason, I submit that, in his letters in the Intellectual Repository he has sadly confused this great subject, and has made statements which are not creditable to himself or to the New Church, and which indicate but a partial view of Swedenborg's teachings on this subject.

Thus Mr. Mason believes in two Divine Trinities, which are totally different in their nature; one of them eternal, the other not; one of them a Pagan or Jewish, the other the Christian Trinity. He "denies that the Christian Trinity is in any sense an eternal Trinity,” and says " But this eternal Trinity, in the image of which man was and is created, is not, therefore, the same as the Christian Trinity, which com

14

THE REV. B. F. BARRETT'S REPLY

66

menced with the incarnation"-that is, not the same in its essential nature, for the nature of the Trinity is the very subject in question. Mr. Mason asserts that, prior to the incarnation there was a duality (not Trinity) in the divine nature"-" God and the spirit of God." In other words, there was a divine soul, and a divine proceeding, but no divine Form or body-divine humanity. "The divine Trinity," (meaning the Christian Trinity) he says, "came into existence by the introduction of a new or third element or essential into the previously revealed duality of the divine nature, or mode of existence. This intervening third element was the glorified Humanity mediating between God (or the Father) and the spirit proceeding from the Humanity."

Contrary to all this, I maintain that there is but one divine Trinity revealed in Holy Scripture, and the nature of which Swedenborg has fully explained; that this Trinity is unchangeable in its nature; the same now that it always was; that it is absurd to speak of a divine Trinity that is not eternal in its nature; but that this Trinity became incarnate-that is, descended to ultimates-in time, and revealed itself to men in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Swedenborg has hundreds of times explained to mean the divine love or goodness, the divine wisdom or truth, and the divine virtue or proceeding operation; otherwise called by him the Divine, the divine Human, and the divine Proceeding.

I maintain, contrary to Mr. Mason, that God never existed as a divine "duality;" but that the essential divine love was always clothed with divine wisdom, that is, bodied forth under a divine human Formfor there always was a divine Human, and thence proceeded the Holy Spirit, an effluence, however, incapable of reaching and affecting men in their lowest states, prior to the incarnation. I deny that any element exists in the divine Trinity now that did not always exist, and that it is absurd to talk of "a new or third essential" having been eighteen hundred years ago introduced into the previously existing duality of the divine nature. An essential of any being, is something without which that being can have no existence. And these three," says Swedenborg, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are the three essentials of one God." Now, am I right, or is Mr. Mason? We will see.

I certainly have the warrant of Scripture for saying that there is but one divine Trinity. Nor does Swedenborg tell us of more than one That is set forth under the Scripture terms of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These terms I have explained as meaning respectively (that is, when used to designate the elements of the Trinity) the divine love or good, the divine wisdom or truth, and the divine effluence or proceeding

TO THE REV. W. MASON.

15

operation. And I showed in my last communication* that Swedenborg has many times explained them in precisely the same way. But Mr. Mason insists that this is wrong; that the Father signifies all three of these. "According to Swedenborg's explanation," he says, "the whole Trine of Mr. Barrett are included in the Father; while Mr. Barrett apportions to the Father only one of his Trine, namely, the divine good." And he immediately adds-"Such an arbitrary, unscriptural partition and apportionment of the divine attributes as that of Mr. Barrett and others, (it seems, then, I am not alone in error on this subject,) between the Father, Son, and Spirit, giving only one to each, cannot be too strongly condemned." But this is a question that any one may speedily settle for himself. To do so, he has but to turn to Swedenborg's index to the Arcana and the Apocalypse, and see what he says is the signification of Father and Son when mentioned in the Word. Over and over again does he there tell us that the Father is the divine good, and the Son the divine truth ;" "that the divine good of the Lord is what is named Father in the Word, and the divine truth what is named Son." And scores of passages are referred to by way of illustration and confirmation. And in never a solitary instance does our author tell us, as Mr. Mason has, with so much assurance, that the Father signifies all these three, good, truth, and their proceeding operation. I challenge the production of a single passage in all his writings, to justify Mr. Mason's strange assertion. Among the numerous passages referred to by Swedenborg in his indexes, under the word "Father," are such as the following

66

66

By Father is meant the divine good of the Lord's divine love, which, in the word of the Evangelists, is everywhere meant by the Father when named by the Lord, and the divine truth of his divine wisdom by the Son; which two were united as soul to body and body to soul, when the Lord glorified his Humanity." And afterwards, in the same paragraph, it is said, "That the divinity which is called the Father, and the divine Humanity which is called the Son, are one like soul and body; " (A.R. 613.) showing that "divinity" and "divine good" are used interchangeably by our author, as signifying the same thing-also "the divine truth," and "the divine Humanity." And still plainer in the following extract:

"The Lord's divine is nothing else but good, yea, essential good; and the divine truth is the Lord's divine good so appearing in heaven, or before the angels; the case herein is like that of the sun; the sun itself in its essence is nothing else but fire, and the light which thence appears is not in the sun, but from the sun. And whereas

* We have not seen this communication.-ED.

16

THE REV. B. F. BARRETT'S REPLY

divine good appears as divine truth, therefore for the sake of man's apprehension the Lord's divine is distinguished into divine good and divine truth; and divine good is what in the Word is called Father, divine truth is what is called Son. . . From the divine good which is the Father, nothing can proceed or come forth but what is divine, and this which proceedeth or cometh forth is divine truth, or the Son." A. C. 3704.

And, speaking of an arcanum concerning the unition of divine good with divine truth in the Lord, Swedenborg says: 'The arcanum is, that there was a reciprocal unition of divine good and divine truth, thus of the Divine itself, which is called the Father, and of the divine truth which is called the Son." A. C. 10,067.

66

'The Lord in the Word is called Jehovah, [and also Father,] as to divine good, for divine good is the very divine; and the Lord is called the Son of God as to divine truth, for divine truth proceeds from divine good, as a son from a father, and also is said to be born." A. C. 7499.

The essential divine, then, signified by the Father, is the divine esse or divine good. And this, we are told, stands related to the divine Human signified by the Son, as the fire of the great orb of day stands related to the light, which is its manifested form. The divine Human, then, must be the divine truth And this our author explicitly declares more than once. "Divine truth," he says, "is the same thing as the divine Human." A. C. 2643. "The divine Human is nothing but the divine truth, which proceeds from Himself."* Ib. 6945. Therefore the union of the Divine Good with the Divine Truth in the humanity He assumed, is what is meant by the union of the Divine with the Human, and the Human with the Divine. This too, is explicitly declared. "The union of the Divine essence with the human, and of the human with the Divine, is the divine marriage of good with truth, and of truth with good. And, whereas divine good can in nowise be and exist without Divine Truth, nor Divine Truth without Divine Good, but one is in the other, mutually and reciprocally, it is hence manifest, that the Divine marriage was from eternity, that is, the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, as the Lord himself teaches in John: 'And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.' xvii. 5. 24." A. C. 2803.

This, it will be seen, is directly opposite to the teaching of Mr. Mason, who does not admit even the existence of the Son, or of that which is signified by the Son, prior to the incarnation. The Son, according to his view, is the "new or third element" introduced eighteen hundred

* See note above.