LETTERS
TO A
TRINITARIAN;
OR,
THIE DOCTRINE OF THE
TRIPERSONALITY OF JEHOVAH
INCONSISTENT WITH THE
TRUTH OF THE INCARNATION.
BY GEORGE BUSH.
BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY OTIS CLAPP, 23 SCHOOL STREET.
NEW-YORK: LEWIS C. BUSH, 16 HOWARD STREET.
LONDON: J. S. HODSON AND W. NEWBERY.
1850.








PREFA CE.
THE ensuing series of Letters, with the exception of the one on Atonement,
first made its appearance in successive Numbers of the " New Church Repository," for 1848, conducted by the Author. They were addressed to a gentleman of high literary and theological repute, though not a clergyman, and
whose strong adherence to that form of doctrine known in the American
churches as orthodox and evangelical, rendered him, to my mental eye, an
impersonation of the peculiar aspect of the Trinitarian dogma with which I
would contrast the teachings of the New Church. The ideal presence with me,
ofthe established system thus represented, has, in every stage of the discussion,
probably given complexion to the tone of my arguments. But I trust, notwithstanding, that the Unitarian also may filnd, in the ensuing pages, a presentation
of views that he will not turn from under a sinister impression founded on their
advocacy of the doctrine of the supreme divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He
will here find the doctrine set forth under entirely new aspects and relations,
and arraying itself in equally strong antagonism with the Trinity which he rejects and the Unity which he defends.
If the Author has written at all in the spirit of the system which he has
espoused and would fain commend to the attention of his fellow-Christians,
he cannot well have made himself liable to the charge of an illiberal, uncourteous, or indecorous mode of conducting. an inquiry upon a very important
department of revealed truth.
He has only to ask of those who may condescend to notice the work, that
they will not consider the argument of the Letters refuted simply by disparaging flings at the alleged visionary claims of Swedenborg. I could not
well sink lower in the esteem of others than I should in my own, did I deem
myself capable of giving credence or currency to a system of religious doctrines that relied mainly upon anything else than its own intrinsic evidence of
truth, albeit I may not be willing to admit that this truth could have been discovered unless it had been previously revealed.
NEW-YORK, JAN. 1, 1850.








CONTENTS.
LETTER I.-THE ANGEL JEHOVAH,...         7
LETTER Il.-THE ANGEL- JEHOVAH,.                               14
LETTER III. —THE DIVINE HUMANITY,...              22
LETTER IV. —THE DIVINE HUMANITY                                 28
LETTER V. —JEHOVAH-JESUS,.                                 42
LETTER Vl. —JEHOVAH-JESUS,....     53
LETTER VII.-THE INCARNATION,.                  61
LETTER VIII.-THE INCARNATION,.                           73
LETTER IX.-THE GLORIFICATION,                 ~                 80
LETTER X.-THE GLORIFICATION,.                           99
LErTER XI. —THE ATONEMENT,    ~. 107
LETTER XII. —PRACTICAL RESULTS,.                             120
LETTER XIII. —PRACTICAL RESULTS,                               130








LETTERS TO A TRINITARIAN.
LETTER I.
THE ANGEL JEHOVAH.
DEAR SIR,
IN our frequent conversations upon the distinguishing features of
Swedenborg's Theology, you have more than once intimated your
objections to his doctrine of the Divine Trinity as being really subversive of the true tenet, while yet holding forth a show of sustaining
and confirming it. The position so distinctly and emphatically maintained throughout his writings, that the Jesus of the New Testament
is the Jehovah of the Old, and that in Him is concentrated the only Trinity we are taught to recognise in either, strikes you as so inconsistent
with what you have been led to believe in regard to the Tripersonal
distinction, in which Christ holds the second rank, that you are
prompted to an instant rejection of the entire scheme, and scruple not
to affirm that if reduced to the alternative of giving up either the
personal Trinity or the absolute Unity, you should feel compelled to
resign the latter. This is doubtless more than most Trinitarians
would be willing to say, notwithstanding their firm assurance that a
threefold distinction of persons is unequivocally taught in the pages
of Revelation. They have never yet, I believe, intimated that they considered the doctrine of the Tripersonality more clearly taught by the
sacred writers than that of the Unipersonality. Your views on this
head are probably peculiar to yourself. But in what I propose to
offer on the general subject I shall take no advantage of this ultraism
of position. I shall address you and aim to reason with you as occupying simply the ordinary Trinitarian ground —that is, as admitting
that Jesus Christ is in some sense possessed of divine attributes, while
at the same time he is, as divine, the second person of the adorable
Trinity, in which character he assumed our nature, and accomplished
the work of redemption on our behalf.
In the ensuing series of letters I propose to canvass the general
theme of the Supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ,
with a special reference to the established views of Trinitarians on
that subject, and by a course of argument founded primarily upon
the Old Testament Scriptures. In the prosecution of my purpose, I
have the satisfaction of knowing that we shall agree as to the authority appealed to. In a controversy with a Unitarian I fear I could




8              Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter I.
not promise myself this advantage, as I perceive in the leading writers of that class a striking backwardness, to say the least, to abide
by the testimony of the Old Testament in respect to the central doctrine of our Lord's divinity. They evidently regard this portion of
the Scriptures as a mass of ancient historical documents, venerable
indeed by age, but embodying merely the statements and sentiments
of fallible men, who have chronicled facts and given utterance to
poetry, prophecy, and parable under the promptings of a certain religious fervor, which at the same time falls immeasurably short of any
thing that can be properly called an infallible divine inspiration.
With the advocates of this opinion it would of course be impossible to
enter upon such a discussion as I now propose, without a long preliminary debate upon the claims of the old Testament Scriptures to
a character of equal authority, as a standard of doctrine, with that
of the New. But all this, in the present instance, I am happily
spared. I require no concession on this head but such as you are
prepared at once to make. I shall, however, venture to hope that if
the eye of any candid Unitarian shall fall upon these pages, he will be
somewhat arrested and impressed by an array of evidence drawn
from this source, on the main position, of which perhaps he was but
little aware, and the force of which, I trust, may not be diminished to
his mind by any air of novelty in the foirm of its presentation. I trust,
too, that he will at least be ready to admit that on the ground which
we assume, of the inspired character of the Law and the Prophets,
our grand conclusion is one that is not easily resisted. For the proof
of our postulate, we refer him to the various writers on the canon
who have treated it in all its bearings.
To one who has been so familiar as I have long known you to be
with the original languages of the Scriptures, it must often have occurred as a query, what could be really intended by the remarkable
phrase, mna  t5~n, 7iltJalak Yehovah1, or, An ngel of the Lord, so frequently
met with in the Pentateuch and the subsequent books. Who was the
true personage intended by that appellation? Was it the veritable
Jehovah himself who was thus indicated, and if so, whence or why
the denomination? If it were a created angel, what relation does he
sustain to Jehovah, and on what ground does he speak in His name
and claim for himself His attributes? This is a feature of the sacred
record too prominent not to have attracted the notice of commentators in all ages, and yet scarcely any one, I think, can fail to have
been struck with the vague and vacillating air of their expositions.
It has formed a problem that has defied their solution. Yet nothing
is of more importance than to ascertain the grounds of this denomination. If it has any bearing at all on the grand question at issue, it is
of an import the most momentous, as its relations are ramified, to a
vast extent, over the whole compass of revelation; and, if I mistake
not, it will appear that no adequate view can be obtained from the
New Testament of the true character of Christ, which involves an
omission of the testimony gathered from the earlier Jewish oracles.
No other satisfactory clew, I am persuaded, can be obtained to the




The Angel Jehovact.                       9
leading titles applied to our Lord by the. Evangelists and Apostles.
But the evidence of this remains to be adduced.
It is my intention, in the sequel of the discussion, to adduce from
Swedenborg the true, and, as I believe, the only true solution of the
problem involved in this remarkable form of speech, but my present
object is to exhibit distinctly the usage itself as a basis for the final induction. To this end it will be requisite to accumulate ample proof
that the title "Angel of the Lord" is applied in some sense to the
Lord himself, or, in other words, that the terms are used interchangeably. Should the citations appear rather copious, the object in view
will account for it. A great step is taken towards the main conclusion when the fact is established that Jehovah is called an angel.
"And the Angel of the Lord found her (Hagar) by a fountain of water in the
wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's
maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee
from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the Angel of the Lord (Jehovah) said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the
Anrel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it
shall not be nunmbered for multitude. And the Angel of the Lord said unto her,
Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the. LORD hath heard thy affliction.  And he will be a wild
man, his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him;
and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the
nanie of the LORD (Jehovah) that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she
said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me?" —Gen. xvi. 7-13.
As the Angel here mentioned is called by Hagar, " Lord" (Heb.
Jehovah), and as he addresses her in a style befitting only the Most
High, promising to perform  what He alone could do, and foretelling
what He alone could know, the inference is not only fair, but inevitable, that an identity of some kind subsisted between Jehovah and
the Angel. The precise nature of this relation will be clearly developed by and by.
i" And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
And the Angel qf the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham,
Abraham. And he said, Here am I. And he said. Lay not thine hand upon
the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I klnow that thou fearest
God. seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.
And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done
this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I
will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the
heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth
be blessed ) because thou hast obeyed my voice."-Gen. xxii. 10-12, 15-18.
Here also it is obvious that the angel predicates of himself what
can only strictly pertain to the supreme Jehovah. This is abundantly confirmed by Paul (Heb. vi. 13, 14), "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by
himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I
will multiply thee." If the angel sware by himself, and could swear by




10                Letters to a Trinitarian. —Letter I
no greater, there must surely be some sense in which the angel is
Jehovah.  He is besides expressly called "God" by the Apostle.
" And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with
the princes of Moab. And God's anger was kindled because he went: and
the Angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now
he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. And the
ass saw the Ang'el of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his
hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and
Balaam smote tile ass, to turn her into the way. But the Angel of the Lord stood
in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.
And when the ass saw the Angel of the Lord, she thrust herself unto the wall,
and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again. And
the Agizel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no
way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the ass saw the
Angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam; and Balaam's anger was
kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff." —Num. xxii. 21-27.
This Angel is mentioned repeatedly in the subsequent verses, and
in ver. 32-35 it is said"And the Angel of the Lord said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten
thine ass these three times 3 Behold, I went out to withstand thee, because
thy way is perverse before me: and the ass saw me, and turned from me these
three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee,
and saved her alive. And Balaam said unto the Angel of the Lord, I have
sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again. And the Angel of the Lord
said unto Balaamn, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto
thee, that thou shalt speak."
It is then the Angel of the Lord who speaks to Balaam, and dictates what he is to say to Balak. Yet it is clear that he regarded
him as the Lord himself, for he says to the king of Moab, "The word
that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak."  Moreover, it is
expressly said (ch. xxiii. 5), "And the Lord put a word in Balaam's
mouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus shalt thou speak."  So,
also, ver. 16, "And the Lord met Balaam, and put a word in his
mouth, and said," &c.  The evidence, therefore, would seem  to be
decisive, that the titles, "Angel of the Lord," and " Lord," are here
used as equivalent.
"And an Angel (or, the Angel) of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim,
and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the
land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this
land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my yoice:
why have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from
before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be
a snare unto you." —Judg. ii. 1.
It was surely no other than Jehovah who brought the Israelites out
of Egypt, who made a covenant with them, and to whom they were
accountable for disobedience.  These are acts and relations which
could not be predicated of any creature.  The Angel of the Lord




The Angel Jehovah.                       11
must here denote the Lord himself.  As to the circumstance of his being said to " come up from Gilgal," it is probably in allusion to the fact
that in Gilgal near to Jericho this divine personage had recently appeared to Joshua as an armed warrior. That he was Jehovah cannot
be doubted, because he suffered Joshua to worship him, and even commanded him to put off his shoes from his feet, inasmuch as the ground
on which he stood was, by reason of his presence, holy. The evidence is cumulative of the truth of this construction.
" And there came an Angel of the Lord, and sat under an oak which was in
Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abi-ezrite: and his son Gideon threshed
wheat by the wine-press to hide it from the Midianites. And the Angel of the
Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, The Lord is with thee, thou
mighty mall of valor. And Gideon said unto him, 0 my Lord, if the Lord be
with us, why then is all this befallen us? and where be all his miracles which
our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt? but
now the Lord hath forsaken us, and delivered us into the hands of the Midianites. And the Lord looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and
thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee 1
And he said unto him, 0 my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold my
family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father's house. And the
Lord said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shlalt smite the Midianites as one man. And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy
sight, then show me a sign that thou talkest with me. Depart not hence, I
pray thee, until I come unto thee, and bring forth my present, and set it before
thee. And he said, I will tarry until thou come again. And Gideon went in,
and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh
he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him
under the oak, and presented it.  And the Angel of God said unto him,
Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and
pour out the broth. -And he did so. And when Gideon perceived that he was
an Angel of the Lord. Gideon said, Alas, 0 Lord God! for because I have seen
an Angel of the Lord face to face. And the Lord said unto him, Peace be unto
thee: fear not: thou shalt not die. Then Gideon built an altar there unto the
Lord, and called it Jehovah-Shalom; unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the
Abi-ezrites."-fJudges vi. 11-24.
The language here employed leaves no room for doubt as to our
main position. The " Angel of the Lord," called also, v. 20, the " Angel of God," is all along addressed by Gideon as the Lord (Jehovah),
and in v. 14 is expressly called so. In v. 22 the more appropriate
rendering would be, "When Gideon perceived that he was the Angel
of the Lord," as the form of the expression in the original is precisely the same bere as throughout,the Pentateuch and the Prophets.
There is therefore no ground for the wavering of our version between
" an Angel" and " the Angel."  It would have been altogether preferable to have adopted the uniform rendering "the Angel of the Lord."
In Judges xiii. 8-23, we have an account of a remarkable interview between " the Angel of the Lord" and Manoah and his wife, the
parents of Samson. In the outset of the narrative he is termed "a
man of God," a designation which he himself acknowledges, v. 11,
but this is dropped in the sequel, and that of "Angel" alone employed. After reciting his answer to their interrogatories the story proceeds:




12               Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter I.
"And Manoah said unto the Angel of the Lord, I pray thee, let us detain
thee until we shall have made ready a kid for thee. And the Angel of the
Lord said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I wvill not eat of thy bread:
and if thou wilt offer a burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the Lord. For
Manoah knew not that he was an'Angel of the Lord. And Manoah said unto
the Angel of the Lord, What is thy name, that when thy sayings corne to pass
we may do thee honor? And the Angel of the Lord said unto him, Why askhst
thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret? So Manoah took a kid, with a
meat-offering, and offered it upon a rock lunto the Lord; and the Angel did
wondrously, and Manoah and his wife looked on. For it came to pass, when
the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the Angel qf the Lord
ascended in the flame of the altar, and Manoah and his wife looked on it and
fell on their faces to the ground. But the Angel of the Lord did no more appear
to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an Angel qf the
Lord. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have
seen God."-Judges xiii. 8-23.
The words of the Angel to Manoah, "Why askest thou thus after
my name, seeing it is secret," have the air of a rebuke for putting
the question alluded to. But what offence could attach to a respectful and reverential interrogation of this kind? Why was the mere
secresy of the name a reason for its not being asked.  Was it not
rather the reason why he did ask it?  We admit, indeed, that if Manoah had been previously informed that the name was ineffable-that
it was designed to be kept a profound secret-he would have been
guilty of high presumption in demanding it. But we see no evidence
of this in any part of the sacred text, and conclude therefore that the 
Angel made use, of this interrogative form of speech merely in order
to introduce, in the most suitable and impressive manner, the declaration that follows, constituting the real point of his reply: "It is secret;"-or rather, as in the margin, "It is wonderful," for so the original
(~a,, pelai) properly implies, and so it is expressly rendered, Is. ix. 6
"His name shall be called Wonderful ( Xfi, pela)"; i. e. his nature,
his character shall be wonderful; properly implying that kind of wonder which is the natural effect of miracles, of marvellous and superhuman works.* In apparently declining therefore to reveal his name
he does in fact make known one of his most august and glorious titles, one which went far towards conveying an idea of the divine
attributes of his nature, and one which was therefore eminently appropriate to the drift of Manoah's question. The implication probably
is, "You have scarcely occasion to inquire as to my name (nature);
for it is obvious from  the words, promises, and actions already witnessed and yet further to be displayed, that I nam, and am therefore to
be called, Pela, the Admirable One, the great Worker of Wonders,
* There is some slight variation among commentators in the mode of rendering this
term. Michaelis, Dathe, Boothroyd, and others follow our English version. Le Crine has
it must rermain secret; the Genevese of 1805, it is sublime. De Wette has wunderbar, which
does not differ from Luther's wtnsdersam, wondrous, admirable. Michaelis remarks upon'
the original, that' it includes all these significations-uzknowon, secret, enigmatical, mysterious, wondeifMl. Manoah probably understood it thus,-his name remains secret, he will
not tell it, biet is determined to remain unknown. But in fact, it carries a further meaning;
his name is so mysterious that men cannotperfectly onderstand it; it is unspeakable, that is,
he is God, whose nature and pe7fectionrs suerpass the comprehension of mortals." —  nmernk.
in loc.




The Angel Jehovah.                      13
the Master of Miracles."  The original (N5i:,peTai) has the form of a
proper name, but the force of an appellative. Whether Manoah fully
understood its entire import is perhaps to be doubted; but whether he
did or not, the declaration is to Ius, considered in one point of view,
immensely important; for by assuming a title which unquestionably
belongs to the promised Messiah, he identifies himself with that divine
personage, and consequently puts it beyond a doubt who it is that
is meant by the term "Angel " or "Angel of the Lord," so frequently
occurring in the Old Testament Scriptures, in connection with miraculous appearances and revelations.
In v. 19 it is said that " Manoah took a kid, with a meat-ofering, and offered it upon a rock unto the Lord, and the angel did
wondrously."  As the words "the angel," are supplied by'the translators, not being found in the original, and as "Lord" is the next
immediately preceding subject, it might be as properly rendered, " and
he (the Lord) did wondrously."  The Heb. term for " did wondrously"
is slir, maphlia, from the same root with  5.r, pela, occurring above
The term, therefore, corresponds with the name which he had before
attributed to himself.  Being wonderful, he put forth a wondeful
manifestation.
The following passage from the prophet Isaiah presents us with
another marked instance of parallel allusion:
"I will mention the loving —kindnesses of the LORD, and the praises of the
LORD, according to all that the Loanl hatli bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel. which he hath bestowed on them according
to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his loving kindnesses. For
-he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their
Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, al1 the A,ngel of his presence
saved theml: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them. and he bare them
and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his Holy
Spirit: therefore he was turtled to be their enemy, and he fought against them."
-Is. lxiii. 7-10.
The personage here denominated the " Angel of his presence" is be-.
yond all question the same with him who is firequently mentioned as
having conducted the children of Israel through the wilderness, and
as having often interposed to deliver and save them. We have given
the above extract in full, as it contains a not very obscure allusion to
the threefold phasis of the divine nature, indicated by the titles Jehovah, Angel of' the Presence, and Holy Spirit, which are still one.
On bringing together the principal features in these remarkable
citations, we find that the personage described claims an uncontrolled
sovereignty over the affairs of man; —that he has the attribute of
omniscience and omnipresence;-,that he performs works to which
omnipotence only is competent; —that he uses the sacred formula
peculiar to Jehovah; he swears BY HIMsELF;-that he is the gracious Protector and Saviour, the Redeemer from evil, and the Author
of the most desirable blessings; —that his favor is to be sought with
the deepest solicitude;-that he is the object of religious invocation;
-that he is in the most express manner, and repeatedly, declared to
be JEHOVAH, GoD, the ineffable I AM THAT I AM; —and yet that notwith



14             Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter II.
standing all this, the mysterious Being in question is represented as,
in some sense, distinct from the Lord himself and acting, as the term
Angel imports, under some kind of divine mission.
What then is the inference from all this? Are there two Jehovahs? Reason and revelation at once reclaim against such a conclusion, and some solution must be found which shall recognize the
distinction and still preserve the identity. Such' a solution we believe
to be afforded in the theological developments of Swedenborg, and
upon this branch of our subject we shall enter in the sequel, which
will disclose results of great importance.
Yours, &c.
LETTER II.
THE ANGEL JEHOVAHo
DEAR SIR,
In my former letter, the evidence was somewhat largely adduced
of the fact of a remarkable usage by the sacred writers in regard to
the term Angel, in connections where, at the same time, the real personage would still seem to have been Jehovah himself, as the predicates apply to him rather than to any created being. The Angel
speaks in a style which is at once perceived to be appropriate to the
Lord of Angels only. This is pre-eminently the case in a passage
which was not cited in my former communication; I allude to the
recorded divine appearance to Moses at the burning bush.," Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian:
and he led the flock to the back side of the desert, and came to the mounrain
of God, even to Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a
flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush
burned with fire, and tile bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will
now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And
when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of
the midst of tilhe bush, and said, Moses, Moses! And he said, Here am I.
And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet; for
the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, I am the
God of thy father, the God of Abrahain, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.": —Exod.
Lii. 1-6.
Throughout the entire narrative it is plain that it is Jehovah himself who speaks in the person of the Angel, for he says, v. 6, " I am
the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob;" and Moses is said to have hidden his face, because " he was afraid to look upon God." Again, when Moses inquired
what answer he should return to his people, when they demanded of
him in whose name he came to them



The Angel Jehovah.                     15
"God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: And he said, Thus shalt thou
say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said
moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The
Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God
of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my
memorial unto all generations."- v. 14, 15.
This, be it observed, is spoken by Him who is called in the outset
the "Angel of the Lord," for the same original term translated " appeared" is applied to each. We have seen, v. 2, that the Angel is
said to have " appeared" to Moses, and in the ensuing context it is
said —
"Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord God
of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto
me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in
Egypt."-v. 16.
Nothing can be more unequivocal than this. The Angel that made
himself manifest in the burning bush is expressly declared to be
"the Lord God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," and if this title
do not designate the supreme Jehovah, we may well despair of finding any such title in the entire compass of Revelation. The momentous inferences that follow from this, will appear in due time; but at
present I would offer a remark upon the nature of the appearance
here predicated of the personage spoken of, and the remark will hold
good in general of the divine and angelic theophanies or manifestations so frequently mentioned in the Scriptures. The phraseology
doubtless implies a visibility of some kind, and, judging from the simple letter, we should probably suppose that the function merely of the
natural or outward eye was involved in the seeing affirmed of the
spectator. If the Lord appeared to Moses or the patriarchs, the
spontaneous impression would be, that they saw him, and that they
saw him just as they would have seen any other object that came
within the range of their ocular vision. But our Saviour declares,
in' language that would seem incapable of mistake, that "no man
hath seen God at any time;" and the Most High himself is equally
explicit in his reply to Moses on a subsequent occasion, "there shall
no man see me, and live."  You are moreover well aware of the
prevalent belief among the Jews, that the sight of the Divine Being
would be followed by the instant extinction of life. Here, then, we
have a problem to be solved, in the apparent conflict of two classes
of texts, one of which affirms the visibility of Jehovah, and the other
denies it. How shall we reconcile them?  Does Moses utter the
truth when he affirms of himself, of Aaron, of Nadab, and Abihu, and
the seventy elders, that "they saw the God of Israel?" Does Isaiah
declare the truth when he says, " Woe is me, for mine eyes have seen
the King, the Lord of Hosts?" And is it equally true, on the other
hand, that "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and
Lord of lords," is He ",whom no man hath seen or can see," as the
apostle Paul unequivocally affirms? Surely some explanation is
needed which shall relieve these passages of the air of direct contra



16            "Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IL
riety in their literal teachings. Whence is it to be sought? Are we
not inevitably shut up to the conclusion that the kind of seeing is not
the same in'the case in which it is denied, as in that in which it is
affirmed?  Is not the predicated seeing in the one case that of the
outward eye, and in the other that of the inward? How is it possible that spiritual objects can be perceived by any other than a spiritval eye? An angel is a spirit, and a spiritual organ only cap behold
a spiritual being.  Of this, however, the beholder may not himself
be conscious, as the outward and inward vision act in unity.  When
the servant of Elisha saw the mountain covered by horses and chariots
of fire, it was not surely by the natural eye that he perceived them,
for it is said that the Lord "opened his eyes" for the purpose, and no
one can imagine that his outward eyes were previously closed. Yet I
know of no reason to suppose that he wvas  himself aware of seeing
the spectacle by any other than the natural organs of vision.  Still
there was the opening of an inward eye, and the necessity for this
which existed in his case, exists in every similar case. No object
can be seen by the material eye which does not reflect the rays of the
sun's light. But a spirit, being immaterial, cannot reflect these rays,
and cannot therefore be seen by the operation of the ordinary laws
of optics. It requires the.couching, as it were, of the inward eye of
the spirit, in order to produce this effect. When the women entered
the vacated sepulchre of our Lord, on the morning of his resurrection,
they at first saw nothing. A moment after, two angels in white
stood before them. Why did they not see them ontheir first entrance?
Obviously for the reason, that their internal organs of vision were
yet sealed. As soon as the spiritual eye had its film removed, the
spectacle of the angels appeared. So in the case of the risen Saviour himself, and so in every case of angelic or divine apparition.
The external human eye is not competent to the perception of spiritual beings or spiritual objects.
I would here, however, observe that when I speak of a spiritual
mode of vision by which an angel is perceived, I refer only to the
perception had of the angel, and not of the Lord by whom the angel
is employed. Jehovah, as viewed in himself, is forever incapable of
being seen by any created being, except so far as seeinz coincides
with knowing.  He may be said to be seen in representatives by those
who are brought into a state of spiritual vision, as were the ancient
prophets, and so far as an angel represented the Lord, so far those
who saw the Angel saw the Lord.
" When man's interior sight is opened, which is the sight of his spirit, then
there appear the things of another life, which cannot possibly be made visible
to the sight of the body. The visions of the prophets were nothiing else.
There are inI heaven, as was said above, continual representatives of the Lord
and of his kingdom; and there also sigllificatives; insomuch that nothing at
all exists before the si'ght of the angels, which is not representative and signidcative. Hence are the representatives and significatives illn the Word; for
the Word is through heaven from the Lord." A. C. 1619.
It was then the spiritual ocular sense that beheld the Angel, but
the Lord in the Angel was known, not seen. Throughout the Word




The Angel Jehovah.                            17
that species of seeing of which the Lord is the object is in fact of
the same nature, psychologically viewed, with that intellectual perception which is understood by faith.
"' That the sense of sight corresponds to the affection of understanding and
of being wise, is because the sight of the body altogether corresponds to the
sight of its spirit, thus to the understanding. For there are two lights, one
which is of the world from  the sun, the other which is of heaven from the
Lord; iln the light of the world there is nothing of intelligence. but in the light
of heaven there is intelligence. Hence, so far as with man the thitgs which
are of the light of the world are illuminled by those which are of the light
of heaven, so far the man understands and is wise;thus  so Iar as they
correspond. Because the sight of the eye corresponds to the understanding, therefore also sight is attributed to the understanding and is called intellectual ~sight; also those things which man apperceives, are called the
objects of that sight; and also in colnmon speech it is said, that those
things are seen when they are understood; and also light and  illnritination, and thence clearness, are predicated of the understanding, and on the
other hand, shade and darkness, and thence obscurity. These anld similar
things have come into use with man in speaking, fromn the fact that they correspond; for his spirit is in the light of, heaven, and his body in the light of
the world, and his spirit is whllat lives in the body, ald also what thinks;
helnce, many thinffs, which are interior, have thus fallen into vocal expressionis."-A. C. 4405, 4406.
On this head, I beg permission to introduce an extract from  Swedenborg, which will not, I think, be found to contain any thing that
requires an apology on the score of overtasking a rational credence.
" That seeing, in the internal sense, signifies faith from the Lord, is manifest
from numberless passages in the Word, of which we shall adduce the following. Ezek. xii. 2,' Son of man, Thou dwellest in the midst of a house of rebellion, who have eyes to see, but do not see, who have ears to hear, and do not
hear.' Having eyes to see but not seeing, signifies that they were able to understand the truths of faith, but were not willing, and this by reason of evils,
which are the house of rebellion, inducing a deceitful light on falses, and
darllness-on truths. In Matthew,' Blessed are the pure in heart, for they sh.all
see God,' v. 8  where it is evident that to see God is to believe in Him, thus to
see ilim by faith, for they wh6 are in faith, by faith see God, for God is in
faith, and in that which constitutes true faith. Again,'Blessed are your
eyes, because they see, and your ears because they hear: Verily I say unlto
you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see the things which
ye see, but have not seen them,' xiii. 13 to 17; John xii. 40. To see is to know
and understand the things relating to faith in the Lord; thus it denotes faith;
for they weie not blessed because they saw the Lord, and saw His miracles,
bnt because they believed, as may appear from these words in John,' 1 said
unlllto you, that ye also have seen Me, and believed not: This is the will of Him
Who sent Me, that every one who seeth the Sona, and believeth on Him, should
have eternal life; not that any one hath seen the Father, except He Who is with
the Fatner, He hath seen the Father; verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever
believeth on Me hath eternal life,' vi. 36, 40, 46, 47.  To see and not to believe
is to know the truths of faith an(l not to receive them; to see and to believe
is to know and to receive; no one having seen the Father except He Who is
with the Father, denotes that Divine Good cannot be acknowledged except by
Divine Truth. Hence the internal sense is, that no one can have heavenly
good, unless he acklnowledge the Lord. In like manner in the same evangelist,' No onCe hath seen God at anly time, the only-begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath made Him manifest,' i. 18. And again, Jesus said,
i Whoso seeth 1Me, seeth himn Who sent Me; I am come a light into the world,
2




18                Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter II.
that whosoever believeth on Me should not abide in darkness,' xii. 45, 46; where
it-is said plainly, that to see is to believe or to have faith. Again,' Jesus said,
If ye have known Me, ye have known My Father also, and from  henceforth
ye have known Him and have seen Him; whoso hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,' xiv. 7, 9. Again,' The world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth, because
it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: I will not leave you orplhans, I come
to you, yet a little while and the world shall see no more, but ye shall see Me, because 1 live ye shall live also,' xiv. 17, 18, 19; where to see denotes to have
faith, for the Lord is seen only by faith, for faith is the eye of love, the Lord
being seen of love by faith, and love is the life of faith, wherefore it is said,' Ye shall see me; because I live, ye shall live also.' Again,'I say unto you,
there be some of those standing here, whoo shall not taste death, until they shall
see the kingdom of God,' ix. 27; Mark ix. 1: to see the kingdom of God denotes
to believe. From these and other passages it is evident, that to see, in the
internal sense, denotes faith from the Lord,'for there is no other faith, which is
faith, but what comes from the Lord: this also enables man to see, that is, to
believe; but faith from self, or from mant's proprium, is not faith, for it causes
him to see falses as truths, and truths as falses, and if he sees truths as
truths, still he does not see, because he does not believe, for he sees himself
in them, and not the Lord. That to see is to have faith in the Lord, manifestly
appeats from  what has been frequently said above concerning the light of
heaven, namely, that being from the Lord it has with it intelligence and wisdoni, consequently faith in Him, for faith in the Lord is contained within intelligence and wisdom, wherefore to see from  that light, as the angels do, can
signify nothing else but faith in the Lord. The Lord Himself also is in that
light, because it proceeds from Him. It is this light also which shines bright
in the consciences of those who have faith in the Lord, alrthough man is igiiorant of it while he lives in the body, for the light of the world then obscures
that light."-A. C. 3863.
This, you will observe, is proffered as a true solution of the meaning of the inspired Word wherever mention is made of seeing God.
In this ease the sight even of the interior or spiritual sense is merged
in intellection.* But in regard to the representing Angel, he could
be seen, but only by means of the eyes of the spirit.  This discrimination is important, and in view of what has been said we feel authorized to assume the position, that in no recorded instance of theophany
or angelophany was the appearance made to the outward eye, but invariablyto an interior or spiritual vision preternaturally developed for
the occasion.
In the exposition of that part of the Mosaic history which relates
to the vision granted to Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the
elders of Israel, in which it is said that "they saw the God of Israel,
and there was under his feet as it were a hand work of a sapphire
stone, and the body of heaven in his clearness," Swedenborg remarks
that they were then permitted to behold the heavenly patterns or
representative types of the various holy things of the Jewish worship, and in regard to the mode of the vision with which they weire
then favored, he gives us the following information:
~" Hath appeared to me " —that it signifies presence, is manifest from the signification of
appearing to any one, as denoting presence; for by appearing or being seen, in the internal sense, is not signified being seen by the eyes, but by the thought; thought itself causes
presence, for the person thought of appears as if present before the internal sight. In the
other life this is actually the case, for when any one is there thought of intensely, he is presented to view."-A. C. 6893.




The Angel Jehovah.                      19
C" Such things cannot be seen by the-eyes of man, whilst he is in the world,
for those eyes are formed to apprehend terrestrial and corporeal things, thus
things material. They are therefore so gross, that they cannot even apprehend by vision the interior things of nature, as may be sufficiently manifest
from the optical glasses, with which they must be armed, in order to see those
things only which are proximately of interior nature. In a wvord, they are
most dull, and being of such a quality, the representatives which appear to
spirits in the other life, cannot be at all seen by them; but if those representativeys must appear, the lumen of the world must be taken away from the
eyes, in which case the things which are in the light of heaven are seen; for
there is a light of heaven, and there is a light of the world; the light of heaven
is for the spirit of man, and the light of the world for his body; and the case
herein is this: Those things which are in the light of heaven are in thick
darkness, so long as man sees from the light of the world; and vice versa, those
things which are in the light of the world are.in thick darkness, when man
sees from the light of heaven. Hence it is, that when the light of the world is
taken away from the sight of the corporeal eye, the eyes of man's spirit are
then opened, and those things are seen which are in the light of heaven, thus
the representative forms, as was said above. From these considerations it
may be known, whence it is that man at this day is in thick darkness concerning heavenly things, and some in darkness so great, that they do not even believe
that life after death is given, thus they do not believe that themselves are to
live for ever. For man at this day is so much immersed in the body, thus in
things corporeal, terrestrial and worldly, and hence in so gross a light of the
world, that heavenly things are altogether thick darkness to him, and therefore the sight of his spirit cannot be enlightened. From these considerations
it is now evident, that the eyes of the spirit were those, with which Moses
saw the form of the tent in Mount Sinai." -A. C. 9577.
Such then is the nature of the vision by which spiritual and heavenly things are discerned, and as angels are thus and no otherwise
seen, so when the Lord appeared under the angelic form, he was
seen as other angels are seen, by the eye of the spirit and not by the
eye of the body.
The only other hypothesis is that of the miraculous assumption,
for the time, of a material body; that is to say, that the angel ceases
pro tern. to be an angel and becomes a man-a supposition implying
an infraction of divine order so gross and revolting to our conceptions
that we cannot entertain it for a moment. if, moreover, a departure
from the ordinary course of things is to be hypothecated at all, how
much more reasonable to suppose that it should be in accordance
with the laws of order than in opposition to them. Although it is
true that the faculty of interior or spiritual vision is not enjoyed in
the normal condition of man in the present life, yet every one has the
innate capability of its development from the general laws of his being,
since after death he comes into the immediate exercise of the power,
by means of which he at once perceives spirits in their true nature.
But the clothing a disembodied spirit with a material form is instantaneously seen to involve a violation of'the fixed order of things and
to embarrass our conceptions beyond measure.  And what is gained
by it?  A certain effect is to be produced-viz. the vision of an immaterial being. This effect, on the one hypothesis, is produced by a
process which merely anticipates, for a little while, the operation of'
a universal law of our being, and, on the other, by the direct contravenltion of such a law.  If then the resulting effect is in the two




20              IAetters to a Trinitarian.-Letter II.
cases the same, which is the most probable supposition as to the mo.
dus operandl?  You can take your choice of the suppositions.  For
myself I hesitate not for a moment to adopt the idea of the opening
of an interior, spiritual eye, which so acts in conjunction with the
external, that the percipient is not airare but that his vision is altogether normal, and that he sees the angel as he sees any other object
which addresses itself to his sense of sight.*;
Regarding it then as a point established that the appearances of
the angel mentioned were in no case made to the outward organ of
vision, I proceed to the consideration of the legitimate inferences
yielded by the general subject. A solution is to be sought of the
grounds on which the titles "Jehovah" and " Angel of Jehovah" are
interchangeably employed in the sacred record-a tact of which no
possible doubt can remain after the abundant testimony I have adduced. This solution I give in the language of Swedenborg. That
he professes to have come to the knowledge of the truth on this head
in consequence of a special illumination, is certain. At the same
time, this is not the point to which your assent is, in the outset, demanded.  I leave you at full liberty to enjoy your own opinion on
this score. The question submitted to your decision is, whether what
he affirms does not approve itself as intrinsically true, independent
of the medium through which he declares it to have been received.
Upon this you are competent to pronounce. If you find it to stand the
test of your severest judgment, and yet is such a view of the subject
as was never before announced to the world, and such as cannot well
be accounted for on any other supposition than that of its being the
product of a special divine enlightenment, I do not see that you can
refuse to admit his claim as so far made good. But of this I leave
you to judge.  I wish nothing to be forced upon you but what forces
itself.
"The Angel of Jehovah is sometimes mentioned in the Word, and everywhere, when in a good sense, represents and signifies some essential appertainlug to the Lord, and proceeding from him; but what is represented and
signified may appear from the series. There were angels who were sent to
men, and who also spake by the prophets, but what they spake was not from
the angels, but by them: for their state then was, that they knew no otherwise than that they were Jehovah, that is, the Lord: nevertheless, when they
had done speaking, they presently returned into their former state, and spake
as from themselves. This was thie case with the angels who spake the Word
of the Lord; which has been given me to know by much experience of a similar kind at this day in the other life; concerning which, by the divine mercy
of the Lord, we shall speak hereafter. This is the reason that the angels were
sometimes called Jehovah; as was evidently the case with the aingel who appeared to Moses in the bush, of whom it is thus written,' The angel of Jehovah
appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush. —And when
* "When spiritual beings touch and see spiritual things the effect is exactly the same to
the sense, as itwhen natural beings touch and see natural things, and therefore vwhen ma.t
first becomes a spirit, he is not aware of his decease, and believes that he is still in the
body which he lad when he was in the world. A human spirit also enjoys every sense,
both external and internal, which he enjoyed in the world. HIe sees as before. He hears
and speaks as before. He smells and tastes as before, and when he is touched he feels as
before."-H-. - H. 461.




The Angel JeI ovah.                        21
Jehovah saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst
of thle busl. —God said unto Moses, I am that I am. —And'God said moreover
unto TMoses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah God of
youlr fathers hath sent me unto you' (Exod. iii. 2, 4, 14, 15); from which words
it is evident, that it was all angel who appeared to Moses as a flame in the
bush, and that l-e spake as Jehovah, because the Lord, or Jehovah spake by
him. For, in order that man may be spoken to by vocal expressions, which
are articulate sounds, in the ultirnates of nature, the Lord uses the ministry of
ang'els, by filling them with the divine, and by laying asleep what is of their
own proprium, so that they know no otherwise than that they are Jehovah:
thus the divine of Jehovah, which is in the supremes, descends into the lowest
of tnature, in which man is as to sight and hearing. Hence it may appear how
the angels spake by the prophets, viz. that the Lord himself spake, although
by angels, and that the angels did not speak at all from themselves. That the
Word is from the Lord, appears from many passages; as in Matthew:'That
it might be fullfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall bear in the womb, and shall bring forth a soiln (i. 22, 23):
besides other passages. Because the Lord speaks by angels when he speaks
with man, it is hence that he is throughout the Word called an angel; and
then by an angel is signified, as was said, some essential appertaining to the
Lord, and proceeding from the Lord." —A. C. 1925.
We have in the above what we conceive to be the true key to the
mystery of the divino-angelic theophanies recorded in the.Scriptures.
The interiors of the angel were so infilled and occupied by an influx
from the Divine, that his own powers were in abeyance, his consciousness suspended, and he became, for the time being, a mere organ
of Jehovah, through which he c,nveved his will and made known his
counsels.  There is nothing, I think, incredible in this, although there
is much more to be said in explanation, as will appear in due time.
In fact, the same thing holds good occasionally in regard to human
agents who are employed as the Lord's messengers, and, therefore,
speak in his name.  Thus Deut. xxxi. 23, "And he (Moses) gave
Joshua, the son of Nun, a charge and said, Be strong and of a good
courage; for thou shalt bring the children of Israel unto the land
which I sware unto them; and I will be with thee."  Moses here
merges himself in the Divine Prompter of his words. Not unlike this
is the case of the prophet who is spoken of as doing what he announces in the name of the Lord.  Jer. i. 10, 11, "Behold, I have put
my words in thy mouth.  See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to
destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant."  Numerous additional instances of this usage could be adduced, but adequate proof
of the prirciple is all that is at present requisite. The interior grounds,
the rationale, of the grand fact itself, I shall endeavor to unfold in
sub; equent letters; but ere we can with advantage enter upon this
ground, it will be expedient to develop at some length the doctrine of
the Lord's DIVINE HUMANITY, to which accordingly I shall devote my
next.
I would simply remark in conclusion, that from  the considerations
above adduced, it will appear to be of little consequence whether the
original be rendered Artnel of Jehovah or Anlel-Jehovah, which I
havse adopted as the heading of my letter.  Grammatical usage is




22           Letters to a Trinitarian. —Letter III.
probably somewhat more in favor of the former rendering, althlough,
as Dr. J. Pye Smith remarks, the correctness of the latter cannot be
absolutely disproved. Swedenborg's explanation of the fundamental
truth involved, shows that the appellation is intrinsically proper.
Yours, &c.
LETTER III.
THE DIVINE HUMANITY.
DEAR SIR,
In order to a. just appreciation of the closing extract given in my
last from Swedenborg and of numerous others to follow, it will be
requisite to present more distinctly his leading doctrine of the Divine
nature, in which the principles of Love and Wisdom are made to
comprehend the sum of all the perfections usually ascribed to Jehovah. As Heat and Light may be said to comprise all the properties
of the sun, so the Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom  embrace
within themselves all the moral and intellectual elements which the
mind conceives of as constituting the infinite and uncreated source
of all being. What are ordinarily termed Holiness, Justice, Mercy,
Benevolence, &c., are merely the different modifications or phases
of Love. Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence, refer themselves to the head of Wisdom, for which we may substitute Truth,
just as we may speak of Good or Goodness in the place of Love, for
Good is the correlate of Love, as Truth is of Wisdom. This holds
as well in regard to man as to God, since man, in the grand constituents of his nature, is an image of God. Assuming these then as the
paramount principles in the nature of Jehovah, we shall have little
difficulty in admitting that the Divine Love is to the Divine Wisdom
what the Esse of any thing is to its Existere, or the substance to the
form; for Thought in all intelligent beings is the form of Affection. But the E'sse of all existence is its Life; the Divine Life,
therefore, is the Divine Love, and all human life is, in the last analysis, identical with love. That the truth of this proposition may not
strike you at once, is very possible; yet I am persuaded that it will
eventually force itself upon your conviction. How otherwise will
you account for the effect produced even upon the physical system
by the shock of disappointment falling upon a dominant and allabsorbing love?  What an utter prostration of all the faculties and
functions of the body oftentimes ensues. But the life of the body is
in the life of the spirit, and the spirit is the seat of love, or rather its
very essence is love.
In assuming that Love is the Esse of all being, whether Divine,
angelic, or human, we necessarily preclude the idea that it is a quality
pertaining to some unknown substance or substratum, as sweetness




The Divine Humanity.                    23
is the quality of sugar. It is itself the primary substance and substratum. As in regard to Heat, it is impossible for the mind, in its
research into the nature of this element, to reach the conception of
any primordial substance, short of the Divine substance itself, of which
it is a quality, or to say that Heat proceeds from  something hot (for
how came it hot except by heat previously applied?), so in respect
to Love, we must at length inevitably rest in the conclusion, that
there is nothing that lies back of it-nothing of which it is to be predicated as a quality. It is fundamental and primary in every idea of
intelligent being. In God it is underived, self-subsisting, and eternal.
In angels and men it is derived by incessant influx from its infinite
source. And as the love is the life of every thing that lives, Life itself is not creatable, because'Love is not. Throughout the universe
of dependent being, whether angelic, human, animal, or vegetable,
there is no created life. It is perpetual influx, from the self-existing
fountain of life 4in the Deity, into adapted receptive organs. In Him
we live, move, and have our being.
Such, then, if our position be sound, is God-infinite Love and infinite Wisdom, or, what is equivalent, infinite Goodness and infinite
Truth. In this character he is to be viewed as subsisting from eternity, and it is a character predicable strictly of one being, in whom
no distinction can exist that will admit of being expressed by a term
indicative of a divided personality.  Love and Wisdom, or Affection
and Intellect, or Will and Understanding, enter essentially into the
very elemental conception of an intelligent person, whether create or
uncreate, and the duality involved in the idea of these principles of:
fers no more disturbance to the impression of absolute unity of being,
than does the fact of man's possession of Love and Intellect interfere with the conviction of his being still but one person and not two.
As easily could we imagine that the unity of the sun was destroyed by
reason of its two. fold emanation of light and heat, as that the Divine
Love and Wisdom could be the basis of a bi-personal distinction. If
now we add to this the idea of' action, operation, proceeding energy,
we complete our conception of a trinal Deity without at the same
time mentally dividing him into three. There is indeed a triplicity
of aspects in which he is presented to the mind, and one too founded
upon a real three-fold distinction, in the constituent principles of his
nature, but not one that can, with any propriety, be laid as the foundation of a tri-personal distinction. The terms Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, denote not three persons, but three essentials of one person.
All this, I think, is somewhat easy of apprehension, and what
many Trinitarians would perhaps admit, so long as their thoughts remained centred in the contemplation of the abstract and absolute
Godhead, apart from all reference to Christ as " God manifested in
the flesh."  Bat no sooner does the idea of the Lord's incarnation
form itself in the mind, than a vague conception of some mysterious
Trinity of persons ensues, to the second of wvhich the assumption of
our nature is attributed. But the view already given of the necessary and essential unity of the Divine Being, we hold to be absolutely
imperative on our belief, and to be utterly exclusive of any theory of




24            Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter HIL
the Godhead which involves the idea of three persons subsistin-g fom
eternity. Whatever be the true character of Christ as the 1Redeemer
of men —whatever the Divinity predicated of Him-it must be such
as to consist entirely with the unity above asserted. This lies at the
foundation of every correct view of the nature of the Deity, as truly
as the axioms lie at the foundation of every course of mathematical
reasoning. The denial of it is the denial of a first principle, which
does violence to intuition. Nor can this conviction be shaken by the
most multitudinous array of Scriptural passages apparently declaring the contrary, for so overwhelming is the evidence from inspiration and reason on this head, that we know the position cannot be contravened by anything contained in holy writ when rightly understood.
While, therefore, we readily concede and strenuously maintain the
fact of a threefold distinction in the Divine nature, indicated in its
reference to the economy of redemption by the terms Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, we at the same time reject, with equal assurance,
that form of the doctrine which makes what is termed the second
person of the sacred-three, in contradistinction from the other two,
to have come into the conditions of humanity. The true doctrine we
hold to be, that the one, undivided, and absolute Jehovah took upon
him our natture and accomplished redemption in our behalf: This
we affirm to be, upon the authority of Revelation, not only true in
itself, but the great and paramount truth of the Christian system, without the sincere recognition of which there is no genuine faith in the
God of the Scriptures. This I shall hope to showv still more distinctly
in the sequel.
The ground I have thus far assumed will necessarily govern the
tenor of the -whole discussion upon which I have entered. The ultimate scope at which I aim  is to determine the true character of
Christ's work in the scheme of human redemption, and this can never
be done without first discovering his true character in himself, and
the relation which he sustains to the Supreme Deity. The knowledge of what Christ was prior to the incarnation is indispensably
requisite to a knowledge of what he was and did in his incarnation.
That he was from eternity divine, you have no hesitation to admit.
But if he was divine he was God, and if God, the-supreme God; for
the terms are of identical import. Again, the supreme God is Jehovah, and God incarnate is Jehovah incarnate, which necessitates
twith you the admission, that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same.
The Unitarian of course denies this, because he denies the competency of the Old Testament to determine the point for Christians, who
are shut up, in their view, exclusively to the, teachings of the New
Testament in relation to every thing touching the person and work
of the Saviour. I would not, however, imply by this, that the view
of Christ for which I am contending is not sustained in the writings
of the Evangelists and Apostles. On the contrary, I am  fully persuaded, and shall hope to show, that the testimony of the two Covenants is perfectly univocal on this head, and that the Unitarian must
be cast before his own tribunal; but, as I remarked in the outset, 1
propose to found my argument primarily on the Old Testament




The Divine JLHumanity.                  25
Scriptures, by which the language, of the New on this subject is
throughout controlled.
Maintaining, then, on adequate grounds, that Jesus Christ prior to
his incarnattion was the veritable and only Jehovah, it remains to be
ascertained, if possible, what view can be gained of his nature which
will make it conceivable that in this character he should have assumed the earthly humanity of the sons of men. This is the grand
problem to be solved. This is the master mystery, the unfolding of'
which discloses the true economy of redemption and converts faiith
into knowledge. And here it is that we are constrained to avowT our
grateful thanks to the God of all grace for the illumination vouchsafed to his servant Swedenborg, in consequence of which a flood of
light has been thrown upon the deepest arcana pertaining to the Divine Being and the universe of creatures. We, who have studied
the pulrort of these sublime revelations and compared them with the
fairest deductions of our own minds, can scarcely desire any information on the subjects treated of which has not been granted. Still
I am well aware that what is from this source authority with me, on
the themes in question, cannot be supposed to be authority with you
in your present state of mind, and I shall therefore endeavor to present the matter in such a light that the conclusions reached may
stand before you independent of any estimate that either yoiu or I
may have formed of Sxwedenborg as a professed messenger friom
Heaven. Indeed, it is because we perceive that what he has announced is intrinsically true in itself' that we so firmly believe' he was
commissioned to announce it. Our credence is given to the truthfulness of the messenger from our conviction of the truth of' the message; while at the same time we refuse to admit that the intelligence
which thus recognizes the truth of the message was competent to halve
reached it apart from the medium of the messenger. Human reason
may put the seal of its sanction on a multitude of truths which it
could never have discovered by its own powers.
That " God is a spirit" is one of the most emphatic declarations of
holy writ, and equally clear is its teaching that man was made in
the image of God. It is reasonable, therefore, to look for the leading points of' this similitude in the spiritual nature of man. On the
same grounds we are authorised to suppose that the divine image
will be more clearly recognised in the disembodied than in the embodied man, especially when a moral confbrmity to his divine prototype exists within him. The essential constituents of humanity are
more in the spirit than in the body, inasmuch as the body is an effect
of which the spirit is the proximate cause. Yet as every effect is potentially in its cause, we infer that there is that in the human spirit
which is normally represented in the human body; the body is the
exponent of the spirit, so filr as that which is natural and material can
effigy that which is spiritual; in a word, that the body corresponds to
the spirit, which is but another form of saying, that the body is what
it is from the influx of the elaborating spirit into it. The hidden potencies of the spirit develop themselves in sensible manifestation in
the structure and functions of the corporeal fabric. I am unable to




26           Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter III.
see why it is not a fair deduction from this, that if man is created
in the image of God, and what we term his essential humanity-made
visible to the senses in his bodily frame —is virtually and elementally
comprised in his spiritual entity, that this very humanity is a, part of
the divine image —that is, that there is a sense in which the true
human principle pertains to the divine exemplar after which man
was formed. Indeed, how can it be otherwise? Does not man derive
his distinctive nature from the possession of Understanding and Affection? Are not these the very principles and attributes which con.
stitute him man? Take these away and what of humanity is left
to your conception?  If you say, the body, still there would be no
human body if there were no human spirit to form it, and what possible idea can you have of a human spirit to which Will or Affection
and Understanding were wanting'? But the Will and Understanding
in man are the finite counterparts to the infinite Love and Wisdom
of his Maker. It is in these faculties that the image of God is reflected, -and yet these are the very groundwork of his humanity.
How then is it possible to avoid the conclusion that there is in God a
Divine Humanity?  That these terms may, at first blush, strike you
as utterly incompatible with each other, is very possible, but the sequel, I trust, will dispel the air of paradox which invests the position.
That your conception on this head may also be embarrassed by the
consideration of form, is by no means unlikely, but I beg you, nevertheless, to ponder Fwell the proposition and see whether it can be by
any possibility avoided. If it do not involve an essential truth, pray
what is the truth in regard to the inspired declaration that man was
made in the image of God? Does not image imply resemblance? If
a child is said to be an image of his father, do we not necessarily
convey the idea of that in the child which reflects the father, as the
impression on wax reflects the seal that stamped it? If you say that
this is merely external, relating only to the aspect of the father, I entreat you to carry your thoughts a little further, and inquire whether
the external similitude is not due to an internal cause, or, in other
words, whether the soul of the child, derived from the father, has not
moulded the countenance to the paternal image? If so, it can by no
means be maintained that the likeness is merely external. The outer
man is evermore the creation of the inner man, and the father, in his
distinguishing attributes, is reproduced in the child. Shall we hesitate to say, then, that man is man because God is Man? The relation is that of a type to an archetype-of a copy to a pattern. Mllan
could not possibly be an inzage of God, were not God an exemplar of
man.
But God, you say, is infinite, and man is finite. How can the finite
represent the infinite? But this is a question which you are as much
concerned to answer as I am. We are both estopped in our interrogation by the unequivocal averment that man was made in the Divine image. You have to determine the sense in which this holds as
well as myself. My position, however, involves no difficulty; the
difficulty pressing on yours is, I conceive, insuperable. But of this
more as we proceed.




The Dzvzne Humacnity.                       27
As to the fact of God's existing in the human form, one thing may
with all confidence be asserted.  Love and Wisdom  cannot subsist,
or be conceived of, apart from a subject in whom they inhere.  "No
intelligent person," says Swedenborg, "can deny in himself that in
God are love and wisdom, mercy and clemency, and good and truth
itself, for they are from Him; and as he cannot deny that these things
are in God, neither can he deny that God is man; for none of these
things can exist abstractedly from man; man is their subject, and to
separate them  from  their subject is to say that they do not exist.
Think of wisdom, and suppose it out of a man; is it anything?"
Indeed the idea of Love and Wisdom existing out of a personal subject is as absurd as to suppose that the heart and lungs can exist and
act apart from  a body which they actuate:  Can anything more
completely baffle all rational conception?
We are shut up, therefore, as we believe to the inevitable conclusion that God is Very Man-the Infinite Man-comprising within
Himself all the distinguishing attributes of our human nature, and
thus affording an adequate ground-for man to be made in his veritable image.*  But as we have already seen that Christ is God, therefore the infinite humanity of Jehovah must be the humanity of Jesus,
or, in other words, our Lord Jesus Christ must have possessed from
eternity a Divine Human principle, and this admitted it is comparatively easy to conceive that this Divine Human may have clothed
itself with the ultimates of our human Humanity, so to speak, in order
to come down to our level and to reach us by its vivifying influx of
spiritual life.  For the same reason, we can more readily apprehend
the grand truth which we are endeavoring to establish, that the manifestations of Jehovah were made to the fathers from the earliest periods under a human form, for this was the appropriate form, inasmuch as the Lord from his very nature exists in that form. Of this
I shall hope to adduce still more abundant proof in the progress of
the discussion.
Yours, &c.
* " I will relate what must needs seem wonderfidl: every man, in the idea of his spirit,
sees God as a man, even he who in the idea of his body sees Him like a cloud, a mist, air,
or ether, even he who has denied that God is a man: man is in the idea of his spirit when
he thinks abstractedly, and in the idea of his body when lie thinks not abstractedly. That
every man in the idea of his spirit sees God as a mtan, has been made evidelt to mIe front
men after death, who are then in the ideas of spirit; for men after death become spirits,
in which case, it- is impossible for thenm to think of God otherwise than as of a 1man."A. E. 1115.




28                Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IV.
LETTER IV.
TIlE  DIVINE  HUMANITY.
DEAR SIR,
In the preceding  series of letters we have found ourselves conducted, by a course of independent reasoning, to substantially the
same result with that which forms the grand theme of Swedenborg's
disclosures respecting the nature of our Lord prior to the incarnation.
We have seen that a Divine HI-uman  principle pertains essentially
to Jehovah, and is actually- involved in every just conception of his
being.*-   We do not say, however, that this result, announced by
Sw. edenborg, could ever have been  attained  so as to be set forth
clearly and distinctly, if his illumination had not led the way and put
us upon the right track of inquiry. But it is important to hold the
assurance, that his discoveries of divine things do find a response in
the oracles of our own mindls, and that thus they may be, as it were,
rationally verified. I shall, therefore, henceforward feel under no
embarrassment in quoting his language whenever occasion shall render it expedient.  The views advanced by such  a man, on such a
subject, cannot but be entitled to the gravest consideration.
Our position, be it recollected, is, that a Divine Humanity exists in
Jehovah as the very condition of his being, and the only adequate idea
we can form  on this subject results from mentally transferring to Him
the distinctive attributes of our own humanity, and supposing Him
to possess them  in an infinite degree.  If it be objected that our humanity exists in a finite form, and that we cannot conceive of an infinite human-form, I would submit whether the same difficulty does
not press upon the conception of infinite Wisdom  and infinite Love,
which, being substance, must necessarily have a form.  These attributes you admit are, in us, an image in miniature of the same attributes in Jehovah.  But in Him  they exist in infinite measure.  How
then can the finite be an image of the infinite? Yet you do not
whisper the least dissent from  the divine declaration that such is the
fact. You will perceive, therefore, that until this fact is in some way
explained so as to subvert our main position, we cannot be expected
* "All the angels who are in the heavens never perceive the Divine under any other
form than the human; and what is wonderflul, those who are in the superior heavens
cannot tihink otherwise concerning the Divine. They are brought into that necessity of
thinking frolm the Divine itself which flows in, and also friom the form of heaven, according to wlich their thotlghts extend themselves around: for every thoutght which the angels
have has extension into heaven, and according to that extension they have intelligence
and wisdomll. Hence it is, that all there acknowledge the Lord, becatuse the Divine Humanl is given only in Him. These things have not only been told me by the angels, but
it has also been given mne to perceive theum, when elevated into the interior sphere of Iheaven. Hence it is manifest, that the wiser the angels are, the more clearly they perceive
this; and hence it is, that the Lord appears to ther: for the Lord appears in ta divine
angelic form, which is the human, to those who acknowledge and believe in a visible
Divine, but not those who acknowledge and believe in arn invisille Divine; for the formLcr
can see their Divine, but the latter cannot."-H. 4' H. 79.




Thle Divine Humacnity.                    29
to recede from our ground, simply from the urgency of an, objection
which presses as heavily upon your argument as upon ours.  It is
certain that man was created in the image ofGod-it is certain that
this image consists in the possession of wisdom and love —it is celtain that these principles in Jehovah are infinite and yet must inhere
in a person, and that person must be both a substance and a form, as
a substance without a form, or a form without a substance, is a nonentity.  But an infinite substance must have an in'finite form, and
the conception labors no more in regard to the one than to the other.
Our difficulties on this subject arise solely from our subjection, in this
world, to the influence of the ideas of time and space.  Let these be
abstracted, and let us apprehend the real truth, that God has no relation to space —no other at least, than that he is " in all space without space, and in all time without time," —and we shall be enabled
to rise to a higher and juster conception of the divine nature.  We
shall then feel the force of our author's language in the following
paragraph:
"That God is Man, can hardly be comprehended by those who judge all
things from the sensual things of the external man: for the sensual man cannot think otherwise of the Divine than from the world and from the things
which are there; thus not otherwise of the Divine and Spiritual Man, than as
of a corporeal and natural one. He concludes thence, that if God were man,
He would be in size as the universe: and if He ruled heaven and earth, it
would be done by means of many, according to the manner of kings in the
world. If it should be said to him, that in heaven there is not extension of
space as there is ill the world, he would not at all comprehend it; for lie who
thinks from nature and its light alone, never thinks otherwise than from an
extense, such as is before the eyes. But they are exceedingly deceived, when
they thinkl in like manner concerning heaven; the extense which is there is
not as the extense in the world."-IV. ~ H. 85.
5You see then the conclusion to which we are brought, and which
we perceive no way of avoiding but by a direct denial of the inspired
declaration, that man was made in the image of God, or by an equally
direct assertion, that as to the constituents of that image we neither
know nor can know  anything.  This, however, is itself no slight
assumption-to claim to know how much or how little can be known
— to define the exact limits of the human powers, and to prescribe
the ne plus ultra of their attainments.  As we have seen the futility
of this claim in a thousand instances in the history of the past —as
the boundaries once set to the human mind have been repeatedly
broken through-so we have no distrust of its continued advances in
time to come. By the ampler unfoldings of nature, we believe the
Deity is for ever to be more and more fully disclosed to the intelligence of his creatures, and by the laws of interpretation a more distinct and definite conception gained of the import of the terms employed by revelation to set forth his being and perfections. If he
addresses men in human language, we see no reason to doubt that
that language is capable of an explication which shall incessantly
bring it nearer and nearer to the grasp of our faculties, and that in
proportion as this is done we shall see the God of the Universe be



30             Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IV.
coming more perceptibly one with the God of the Bible, which is but
to say that the'highest Rationalism  shall eventually harmonize with
the highest Revelation-ism.  That this result is even now actually
realized in the system of Swedenborg, we are doubtless much more
ready to assert than you are to admit; but our assertion is made upon
the basis of a profound examination of the whole scheme, while the denials of our opponents are put forth upon a presumption that dispenses
with inquiry. This we affirm, because we never meet with objections that take the least cognizance of the fundamental grounds of
our belief. They invariably skim the surface without striking into
the sub-soil of the principles of the system.
From  the conclusion hitherto reached, that a Divine Humanity
pertains to Jehovah, the mind is undoubtedly greatly relieved on the
score of the theophanies made to the patriarchs and prophets. We
see an adequate ground for these appearances having been made
under-the human foim, and we are naturally prompted to recognise
in them, though spiritually perceived, a significant foreshadowing of
that subsequent manifestation which was made in the ultimates of
humanity, that is to say, in a body of flesh and blood.*  Still I can
easily conceive that you are not yet prepared to apprehend the precise mode in which the asserted angelic agency is involved in these
manifestations of Jehovah. Why, you ask, was any medium of communication necessary? Why was it not competent to omnipotence
to bring down the requisite revelation directly to the human faculties?
-a question to which I acknowledge the difficulty of offering a reply
that shall be satisfactory to a state of mind not at present in accordance with the vein of Swedenborg's spiritual announcements. To
one that is, the difficulty is comparatively slight. In attempting,
however, an answer, I must revert to the distinction above stated of
Love and Wisdom in the Divine nature, on which the true solution
entirely depends. This distinction must be regarded as extremely
marked in itself, though the two principles, both in God and man,
really form a one. Love, constituting as it does the esse of being, can
never be directly manifested. Though in reality the inmost element
of the being of man and angel, yet neither man nor angel can ever
come to the interior sight of the love which constitutes their life, as
they can in regard to their thought, which is the form or existere of
love. There is obviously a sense in which a man may be said to
see his thoughts.  But love is made known only by feeling.  It
reveals itself by the sense of itself.  So also in regard to the
Divine Love. It is by influx in every thing that lives, but it is
in it latently, as heat is in the sun's light in the season of spring, yet
it is for ever incapable of immediate manifestation. So far then as
this element of the Divine nature is concerned, it is utterly inaccessible to the vision of any created being, and no language affirming
* "The Israelitish Church worshiped Jehovah, who in himself is the invisible God,
but under a human form, which Jehovah God put on by means of an angel, and in
which form he was seen by Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Hagar, Gideon, Joshua, and sometimes by the prophets, vwhich humazn form was 7epresentative of the Lord vwho was to come;
therefore, all andtevery thing in that Church was made representative also." —T. C. R. 7S6.




The Divine ItEumanity.                 31
visil-bility, in any sense, of Jehovah,_can possibly be understood as
relating to his essential Love, or what may be termed the fundamental ground of his being. "That," says our author, "which proceeds from His Divine Esse without a medium, reaches not man, for
His Divine Esse is invisible, and being invisible comes not within the
reach of thought." So far, therefore, as manifestation is predicated
of Him, it must always be conceived of as referring to his Wisdom
or Truth alone, which is the appropriate form of his Love, just as a
man's intellect is the form of his affection.
I am well aware of the stone of stumbling which must necessarily
lie in your way from the application of the term form to subjects of
a purely intellectual or spiritual nature. Yet how can it be avoided
when treating of substance? Are not the two inseparably united?
Can there be a substance without a form? and if a spiritual substance, must it not have a spiritual form? Is there, in fact, any real
impropriety or incongruity in saying that a man's thought is the form
of his affection? —for surely we understand very easily what is meant
when it is said that a man's dominant affection controls and moulds
his thought, albeit this would be termed a metaphorical expression.
We cannot, therefore, dispense with the term, even in speaking of
the Deity himself, in whom Wisdom or Truth is the form of Love,
the two constituting in unison the basis of the similitude which renders man an image of God.
If, then, it be conceded that we may speak of the Divine Truth as
the form of the Divine Love or Good, the question comes before us
as to the relation which subsists between the Divine Truth and the
Divine Humanity previously established; the determining of which
will necessarily guide our researches as to the nature of the theophianies we are now considering.
The grand point of inquiry is to ascertain how the idea of God, as
a personal being, can come to the human mind, seeing that he is infinite and man is finite, and seeing too that the Divine Esse or Love
cannot, in the nature of things, become a subject of immediate manifestation. Whatever of the Divine is made directly manifest to the
intellectual perception of creatures, must pertain, not to his Love,
but to his Wisdom or Truth. This is a fact of great moment in the
discussion-that it is the Divine Existere and not the Divine Esse
which becomes cognizable to the interior vision both of men and
angels, just as a man in this world becomes visible to another by
means of his body, which is his existere, though his soul, which is his
esse, and in his body. But we do not see the soul; we see only the
body, and the man is manifested in the body. Now apply this to the
Lord himself, in whom the Divine Wisdom or Truth, which is his
existere, is to the Divine Love, which is his esse, what the body is to
the soul, or the form to the substance. How can this Divine Truth
manifest itself, in its personality, to the mind of man, so as to con..
centrate upon it his affections, and by an intelligent apprehension
effect a saving conjunction with itself'?  Must it not come before
him in a form? And yet this form must be finited to be brought
within the reach of his finite faculties?  He is incapable of per



32               Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IV.
ceiving an infinite form.  Here then is the exigency —to conceive how
the infinite Divine Truth can present itself in a form to the mental
perception of a man. We have, however, the advantage, having previously established the fact that Jehovah is essentially Man, or that
there is in Him a Divine Human from eternity. The only difficulty
is in conceiving how this Humanity, which is infinite, can make itself cognizable to an intelligence which is finite.*
In the solution of this difficulty we must necessarily elevate our
thoughts to a contemplation of Jehovah as the self-existent and
eternal fountain of the efflux of Love, Life, and Light to the universe of angels and men.  In all ideas of communication  to  men
from this boundless source of being, we must conceive of him as
flowing donh11  through heaven into the minds which are formed to be
receptive of' his Wisdom  and  Love.  But when we speak of the
Lord's descendinz by iflux, we are carefully to exclude all ideas of
mere local transition.  We are dealing wholly with spiritual conceptions, from  which time and space are to be entirely banished.  So
likewise as to heaven —the true conception will be at once destroyed
if we think of it as a place spatially defined.  Heaven is the aggregate states of all heavenly minds, and these states are formed by the
pervading presence of the elements of Love and Wisdom. It is the
Divine of the Lord which constitutes heaven.  "The angels taken
together, are called heaven, because they constitute it; but still it is
the Divine proceeding from the Lord which flows in with the angels,
and which is received by them, which makes heaven in general and
in particular.  The Divine proceeding from  the Lord is the good of
love and the truth of' faith; as far, therefore, as they receive good
and truth from'the Lord, so far' they are angels, and so far they are
heaven."  "Heaven in general with all, and in particular with each,
is a reception of the influx which is from the Divine Essence." Thus
teaches Swedenborg, and if revelation  does not expressly say as
much, it must assuredly mean it, and " the meaning of the Word is
the Word."  The true sense of the Scriptures can be no other than
that sense which is according to truth.
For the Lordtheherefore, to  descend through heaven, is for his
Divine Truth and Good to flow through the interiors of angelic spirits
downward to the natural plane of men on earth.  But these angels
are all men, and, viewed collectively, they are as one Grand Man
before the Lord, for the heavenly, form  is the human form.t  This
* "That Jehovah appearing denotes the appearing of the Lord's Divine in his L-Iuman,
is evident from this, thalt his Divine cannot appear to any man, nor even to any angel,
except by the Divine Human; aend the Divine Hsman, is nothing but the Divine lTrth
which proceeds from himnself."-A. C'. F1945.
t " That heaven in the bwhole complex resembles one rn an, is an areanum not yet
iknown in the world; but irn the heavens it is very well known." " The in!cdls ileec
do not appear in the whlole complex in such a form, for the whole heaven does not fill
in'to the view of any angel; but they sometimes see remote societies, whilicl consist of
many thousands of angels, as one in snuch a form; arid fromn a society, as fronm a Aart,
they conclude as to the whole, which is heaven. For in the most perfcct fbrll, tilhe
wholes are as the parts, and tlie parts as the wholes; the distinction is only as betweeu
similar things greater and less. Hence they say the whole heaven is such in the sight of
the Lord, because the Divine forms the ilnmost and supreme of all things." —H.. IH.
53, 62.




The Divine Humanrity.                            33
results from the plastic power of the Lord's Divine Human principle
xhich continually-tends to produce images of itself. The Divine is
in the Grand Man of heaven as the soul is in the body; and as the
soul manifests itself through the medium  of the body, so the Lord,
before he appeared in flesh, manifested himself through the medium
of the angelic heaven.' He did this from necessity, for in no other
way could he approach man so as to impart to him an intelligible
idea of his personal mode of existence.  "Before the Lord's advent
into the world, whenever Jehovah appeared, it was in the form  of an
angel; for when he passed through heaven He clothed Himself with
that form, which is the human form; the  whole heaven from  the
Divine Esse there being as one man." —A. C. 10,579.  The human
mind  might indeed have otherwise formed a vague quasi idea  of
Jehovah as a boundless, formless spirit-a kind of illimitable etherbut this is not the true conception of the true God, inasmuch as it
is one that is devoid of all conjunctive virtue. Of this, however, I
shall have more to say hereafter.
It was then by an angelic'medium that the Lord made himself
known in the early ages to his people. He inflowed into an angel
and filled him  with his presence and in his form  revealed his own
form, as far as it was possible to do it.  The angel was his representative, for the time being, and on this ground an identity of person is
often predicated of the Lord and the angel in the sacred record.
This is very clearly indicated in the following passage:
"The reason why the Divine Human is called the Angel of Jehovah, is because Jehovah, before the coming of the Lord, when He passed through
heaven, appeared in a human form as an angel: for the whole angelic heaven
resembles one man, which is called the Grand Mall: wherefore when the
Divine itself passed through the angelic heaven, He appeared in a human
form  as an angel before those Ewith whom He spake: this was the Divine
Human of Jehovah before the corming of the Lord: the Lord's Human, when
made Divine, is the same thing, for the Lord is Jehovah Himself in the Divine
Human. That the Lord, as to the Divine Human, is called an angel, is fiurther
evident from  several passages in the New Testament, where the Lord says
that He was sent by the Father; and to be seant signifies to proceed, and sent, in
the Hebrew tongue, signifies an angel.  That the Lord calls Himself the Sent,
may be seen, Mlatt. x. 40; xv. 24; Mark ix. 37; Luke iv. 43; ix. 48, x. 16;
John iii. 17. 34; iv. 34; v. 23, 24, 36, 37, 38; vi. 29, 39, 40, 44, 57; vii. 16, 18, 28,
* "The infinite Existere, in which is the infinite Esse, they (the most Ancient Church)
perceived as a Divine Man, by reason that they knew that the infinite Existere was
brought forth from the infinite Esse through heaven; and as heaven is the Grand Man,
therefore they could not have any other idea or perception concerning the infinite Existere
from the infinite Esse, than concerning a Divine Man, for whatever passes through
heaven as througli the Grand Man from the infinite Esse, this has with it an image thereof
in all and single things."-A. C. 4657.
"The Lord spake with John through heaven, and through heaven he also spake with
the prophets, and through heaven he speaks with every one to wholn he does speakr: and
this by reason that the angelic heaven in common is as one man, whose life and soul
the Lord is, wherefore all that the Lord speaks, he speaks through heaven, just as the
soul and mind of man speaks through his body-for there is an influx of the Lord
through heaven, just as there is an influx of the soul through the body; the body indeed
speaks and acts, and also feels something fiom influx, but still the body does nothing
from itself as of itself, but is acted upon; that such is the nature of speech, yea, of all
influx of the Lord through heaven into men, has been given to nme to know from  much
experience."-A. R.' 943.
3




34             Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IV.
29; viii. 16,; 18, 29, 42; ix. 4; x. 36; xi. 41, 42; xii. 44, 45, 49: xiii. 20; xiv.
24; xvi. 5, 7; xvii. 3 to 8, 18, 21 to 23, 25." —A. C. 6831.
"The Infinite itself, which is above all the heavens, and above the innmosts
with man, cannot be manifested except by the Divine Human, which exists
withl the Lord alone. The communication of the infinite with the finite is not
possible in any other way.: which is also the reason that when Jehovah appeared to the men of the Most Ancient Church, and afterwards to those of tlhe
Ancient Church after the flood, and also in succeeding times to Abraham and
the prophets, he was manifested to them as a man. Hence it may appear that
the Infinite Esse never could have been manifested to nian, except by the
Human Essence, colnsequently by the Lord." —A. C. 1990.
It was in the finite person of the angel that his own infinite person
was, as it were, reflected, and thus brought down to the perception
of the finite faculties of man, and all this from the intrinsic necessity
of the case.  A divine manifestation to finite man was in no other
way possible. This can by no means be deemed incredible when it
is considered, that even in this world the human spirit, which pervades and animates the whole material man, may sometimes display
itself, in its entire present state, by the medium of a single member
of the body —by a cast of the countenance, a glance of the eye, a
curl of the lip, or a wave of the hand.  The face alone, we well
know, will often mirror the whole actings of the soul under the predominance of a powerful emotion or passion, and even in its repose
we see depicted the ruling character of the man.  " The face," says
Swedenborg, "is the external representation of the interiors, for the
face is so formed that the interiors may appear in it, as in a representative mirror, and another may thence know what the person's
mind is towards him, so that when he speaks he manifests the mind's
meaning as well by the speech as by the face." Nothing more than
this is necessary to afford a solution of the title j:h'57t, malak panai,
angel of the face (or faces), usually rendered angel of the presence,
because the affection of a being is made present in his face. The
plural. form faces occurs in the original to denote the varieties of
affection which impress themselves upon the countenance.  The
divine'faces, however, imply no absolute variation in the divine
affections, but simply,the effect produced by the state of reception in
the beholder, which always modifies the manifestation made to him.
That this should be Swedenborg's interpretation was of course to be
expected.  "The Divine Esse has never appeared in any visible
form, (in facie), although his Divine Human has so appeared, and
by that, and, as it were, in that, the Divine Love has appeared."
"The Lord in respect to the Divine Human is called the Angel of the
faces of Jehovah, because the Divine Humnan is the Divine Esse in a
visible appearance, that is, in a form."
I would here remark that I see nothing in the nature of the subject or in the exigencies of the Scriptural testimony to necessitate
the idea of any particular angel-any one angel by pre-emnzinence —as
having been uniformly employed on these occasions, notwithstanding
the apparently specificating force of the article the —" the angel osi
the Lord."  Considering the infinite interval which separates the




Thie Divine HIumanitry.                   35
highest conceivable creature from the Creator, it is plain that no
angelic intelligence could possess in himself a dignity that should
peculiarly entitle him to this honor; and as the end to be attained by
the assumption of the angelic medium could, to human view, be as
well secured by the intermediate agency of one of this class of beings
as of another, twe are at a loss to perceive tfie grounds of the supposition to which I am  now adverting.  The grand fact assumed is
simply that of the presence of an angel-personator in the Divine
theophanies.  So far as I can see, nothing depended upon the selection
for the office of one being of this order rather4han another.
We are now, prepared for the presentation more in extenso of
Swedenborg's grand announcement on this theme of the Lords's
theophany through an angelic medium.  In his explanation of Ex.
xxiii. 23, "my Angel shall go before thee," he thus writes;-': The reason why the'Lord as to the Divine Human [principle] is meant by"
an angel is, because the several angels, who appeared before the Lord's coming into the world, were Jehovah Himself in a human form, or in the form of
an angel; which is very manifest from this consideration, that the angels who
appeared were called Jehovah. Jehovah Hlinmself in the human form, or what
is the same thing, in the form of an angel, was the Lord. His Divine Human
[principle] appeared at that time as'an angel, of whom the Lord Himself
speaks in John' Jesus said, Abraham exulted to see My day, and he saw, and
rejoiced. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, before Abraham was, I am,' viii. 56,
58. And again,'Glorify thou Me, O Father,, with Thyself, with the glory
which I had with Thee before the world was,' xvii. 5. That Jehovah otherwise could not appear, is also manifest from the Lord's words in John,' Ye
have not heard at any time the voice of the Father, nor seen His appearance,'
v. 37. And again,'Not that any one has seen the Father, except He who is
with the Father, He hath seen the Father,' vi. 46.  From these passages it
may be known what the Lord was from eternity. The reason why it pleased
the. Lord to be born a man, was that he might actually put on the Human
[principle], and might make this Divine, to save the human race.  Know,
therefore, that the Lord is Jehovah Himself, or the Father, in a human form,
which also the Lord Himself teaches in John,'I and the Father are one,' x.
30. Again,' Jesus said, henceforth ye have known and seen the Father. He
who hath seen Me hath seen the Father. Believe Me that I am in the Father
and the Father in Me,' xiv. 7, 9, 11. And again, All Mine are Thine, and all
Thine are Mine,, xvii. 10. This great mystery is described in John in these
words,'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
God was the Word; the same that was in the beginning with God. All things
were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made whic.h was
made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we have
seen His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. No one hath
seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath brought Him forth to view,' i. 1, 2, 3, 14, 18. The Word is the
Divine Truth, which has been revealed to men, and since this could not be
revealed except from Jehovah as a man, that is, except from Jehovah in
the human form, thus from the Lord, therefore it is said,'In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.' It is a
known thing in the Church, that by the Word is meant the Lord, wvherefore
this is openly said,' The Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and
we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.'
That the Divine Truth could not be revealed to men, except fiom'Jehovah ini
the human form, is also clearly said,'No one hath seen God at any time, the
only-begotten Son. who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath brought Him
forth to view.' From these considerations it is evident, that the Lord from




36                 Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IV.
eternity was Jehovah, or the Father in a human form but not yet in the flesh,
for an angel has not flesh. And whereas Jethovah or the Father willed to
put on all the human [principle], for the sake of the salvation of the human
race, therefore also He assumed flesh, wherefore it is said' God was the Word,
and the Word was made flesh.'  And in Luke,' See ye My hands and My
feet, that it is f myself, handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh alld
bones as ye see Me have,' xxiv. 39. The Lord by these words taug'ht, that
He was no longcer Jehovah under the form of an angel, but that He was Jehovah-Man; which  also is meant by these words of the Lord.' r came forth
from the Father, aind am come into the world, again I leave the world, and
go to the Father,' John xvi. 28." —A. C 9315.
From  all this, taken in connection with the train of the foregoing
remark, it would seem  difficult to avoid the conclusion, not only that
Christ is the supreme Jehovah, hut that he is Jehovah in unity, to the
entire and absolute exclusion of' any such hlypostases or subsistents in
the Divine Nature as are usually understood by the term persons.
What possible ground can there be for such hypostases?  If the Divine
Love  and  Divine Wisdom  as already  explained,  together with
the Divine procedere, i. e. act, energy, operation of the united two,
comprise, the totality of the Divine nature, and form the complement of one Divine Person, what basis remains on which to build
the theory of the three distinct persons of the Trinity?  What is the
idea which shall answer to the language of the popular creeds on
this subject?*   Is there  any intelligible  meaning  to  the  words
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so long as they are made the representatives of three distinct personalities in Jehovah?  We have already
found the Trinity complete in one person; why, then, seek for it in
three?  If you say that by persons is not meant persons, but unknown somewhats-certain  mysterious disitrlctions in  the Deity to
which the word persons is applied for want of a better-still I would
beg you to task your intellect to the utmost, and see if you can conceive of any other distinctions than those which I have designated
as the three essentials of the Godhead; yet these three constitute, of
necessity, but one person.t  I know, indeed, that it is common to
speak of the Son of God as the second person of the Holy Trinity,
and also to refer the ancient theophlanies before spoken of to him.
But the Scriptures never speak of them  in this manner.  They give
no warrant for this peculiar attribution. They recognize only the
one, absolute, undivided Jehovah as the true subject of these manifestations.  They never intimate that the Angel was Christ in any
other sense than that in which the alone Jehovah was Christ, and
even he could not properly be then so denominated, because the
anointing on which the title is fbunded did not take place till after
* "What means this, that the Divine is distinguished into three persons? Where is
this to be found in the WvTord. WVhat means this, that the Divine was born from eternity? But that the Divine is one, or one person, or one man, this is intelligible, as also
that the Divine should have been from eternity:  But they are to be excused for thus
teachin.gr who have known nothing of the style of the WTord, that a spiritual sense pertains to every expireesion."-D)e Doen. et de Athatn. Symnb. p. 1.
" A trine or triune God is not one God, so long as this trine or triunity exists in three
persons; but he in whom a trine or triunity exists in one person, is one person, is one God,
and that God is the Lord; enter into whatever intricacies of thought you please, yet will
you never be able to extricate yourself and make out that God is one, unless ihe is also
one in person."-A-. R. 490.




rThe Divine Humanity.                 37
he was made flesh: nor was he, except prophetically, termed Son
prior to that event. The Son of God was born in time, and not
begotten from eternity, as I shall produce ample ground for asserting
as I proceed. All such expressions, in such relations, are proleptical,
and even the titles Jesus and Christ, strictly considered, are now
retrospective, as the character indicated by them has merged itself,
by reason of the glorification, in that of the alone Jehovah or Lord.
Again, then, I ask, what are the grounds of the tripersonal theory of
the Godhead? Where are its sanctions to be found? You surely will
not refer me to those passages of Holy Writ which assert a triplicity
in the Divine Nature; for the establishment and elucidation of this
is the main feature of Swedenborg's doctrine, and what I have all
along assumed as the primary truth of revelation. It amounts to
nothing to tell me that you are taught by the Bible to acknowledge
God under the threefold character of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
I should be very sorry indeed if you were not; but I am brought no
nearer by this confession to an apprehension of three coequal and
coeternal persons in the Gbdhead. And yet this is the very point to
which, as an opponent of Swedenborg, you have put your faith, your
logic and your exegetic in pledge. Ift you make not this apparent
on adequate grounds, you accomplish nothing to the purpose. The
question is not concerning a revealed fact-in this we are both
agreed —but concerning the manner in which this fact is to be understood. What is the absolute truth  couched under the inspired
words? If you still insist upon a veritable trinity of persons, are
you not bound to show that your position can stand in entire consistency with the declaration of the Divine unity contained in the following passages: " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is ONE Lord."
"There is none good but ONE, that is, God."  "ONE is your Father,
which is in heaven."  "There is none other God but ONE." "God
is ONE." "There is ONve God, and there is no other but He."  In that
day Jehovah shall be King over all the earth: in that day there
shall be ONE Jehovah, and his name ONE;" this last passage plainly
implying the advent of a period'vhen the very views promulgated
by the Neow Church on this head shall be universal.
You will not fail to perceive the central point of my position on
the whole subject: that that Divine Essence which clothed itself
-with a material humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, was
no other then the one, exclusive, absolute, and eternal Jehovah. It
is a position which utterly ignores. not only the fact, but the very
possibility, of any such tripersonal mode of existence in the Deity
as shall constitute a ground for ascribing the assumption of flesh and
blood to the second of these persons in contradistinction from the other
two. I hesitate not to affirm that such a view of the Divine nature is
not only repugnant to the clearest voice of reason, but to the most explicit teaching of the Word. Where do you find any thing to warrant it?
No passages can be cited from the Old Testament bearing more directly on the question than those twhich I have already'adduced, and
these as we have seen, both admit and demand another mode of interpretation. In the Angel Jehovah we can recognize no manifestation




38             Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IV.
but that of Jehovah himself in his indivisible unity.  We see not the
slightest intimation of any second hypostasis or person of whom the
theophalny is predicated.  And if this be the purport of the Old Testament, must not that of the New accord with it?  If then the tripersonal theory be attempted to be sustained by Scripture, it must doubtless be on the ground of inference. It is to be inferred that, as a
Trinily is expresslv taught under the threefold appellation of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, therefore these terms must imply the distinction
of three pesons.  But this inference not only conflicts with the inspired
declaration of the absolute unity of Jehovtah, but is rendered useless
by our previous ascertainment of the fict, that a distinction of three
Essentials in'the Godhead most perfectly consists with the idea of one
person; thus answering a;ll the demands of the acknowledged doetrine of the Trinity, without doing the least violence to the genuine
conception of the Unity.  The question then is as to the priority of
claim between an interpretation which thus recognizes a Trinity
entirely consistent with Divine Unity, and one which is wholly at
war with it: for this is clearly the alternative.  I cannot doubt,
indeed, that you. will deny the existence of such a conflict, although
I confess myself wholly baffled in the attempt to see how it is to be
avoided.  On this head you will resolutely fall back upon the buttress of the literal averments of Scripture and the devout acknowledgement off mystery which frowns rebuke upon the prying  researches of the human mind.  Such a posture of' spirit the man of
the New Church contemplites merely as a strange psychological
curiosity.  He finds no demand made upon him to give an implicit
credence to inspired enunciations which he cannot receive without
admitting both sides of a contradictory  proposition.  He cannot
concede, in one breath, that Jesus Christ is the supreme and only
Jehovah, and in the next grant that he is but the second hlypostcsis
of a nature which the intuitions of' his own mind, in response to the
voice of revelation, declare can admit of but one.  That there are
inferences, and those too of transcendent moment, affecting the
whole scheme of Christian doctrine, to be drawn from the scriptural
language in regard to the true Trinity of Jehovah, it will be my object to evince in the sequel.
At present I must be permitted to adduce from  Swedenborg another paragraph fraught with most important bearings upon the general subject:
"'Behold I send an angel before thee;' that hereby is signified the Lord as
to the Divine Humtan [priulciple], ap-!lears from  the sigtlification of sending,
when concerning the Lord, as denyotilng to proceed; in this case, to cause to
proceed; and from the signification of angel, as dlenotinig [lim t ho proceeds,'
for angel in the original tongue signifies sent. Hence is the derivation of that
expression; and by sent is signified proceedin1g, as Fmav be mlalnifest from the
passages quoted from the Word, n. 6831. Henice it is evidecHt that by the
angel of Jehovah is rmeant the Lord, as to the Divine Human [prillcill e], for
this proceeds forom Jehovah as a Father. Jellovah as a Fattier is the Divine
Good of the Divine I,ove, which is the very Esse; and the proceeding [p)rinciple] from the Father is the Divine Truth fiom that Divine Good, thus the Divine Existere' from the Divine' Esse; thlis is here signified by angel.  In like




The Divine Humanity.                          39
manner in Isaiah, ( The angel of His faces shall liberate them by reason of His
love, and His indulgence  He redeemed them, and took them, and carried them
all the days of eternity,' lxiii. 9. And in Malachi,; Behold the Lord, whom
ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, and the angel of the covenant whom
ye desire,' iii. 1, 2; to the temple of the Lord is to His Human [principle];
that this is His temple, the Lord Himself teaches in Matthew, chap. xxvi. 61;
and in. John, chap. ii. 19, 21, 22. In the Church it is said, that out of three
who are named, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, there exists one Divine [being
or principle],. which is also called one God; and that from the Father proceeds the Son, and from the Father by the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit: but
what it is to proceed or to go forth is as,yet unknown. The ideas of the
angels on this subject differ altogether from the ideas of the men of the Church
who have thought about it; the reason is, because the ideas of the men of
the Church are, founded upon three. but of the angels uponi one. The reason.
why the ideas of the men of the Church are founded upon three is, because
they distinguish the Divine [being or principle] into three persons, and attribute to each special and partictlar offices.  Hence it is that they can indeed
say, that God is One, but in no case think otherwise than that there are Three,
who by union, which they call myst cal, are One; but thus indeed they may
be able to think that there is one Divine [being or principle], but not that
there is one God; for in thought the Father is God, the Soil God, and the
Holy Spirit God; one Divine [being or principle] is one by consenlt, alnd is
thus unanimous, but one God is altogethler one. What is the quality of the
idea, or what is the quality of the thought, which the man of the Church has
concerning one God,- hppears manifestly in the other life, for every one brings
along with him the ideas of his thoug-ht; their idea or thought is, that there
are three gods, but that they dare not say gods but God; a few also make one
of three by, union, for they think in one way of the Father, in another way of
the Son, and in another of the Holy Spirit; hence it has been made evident, what is the quality of the faith which the Churclh has concerning the
most essential of all things, which is the Divine [being or principle] Itself;
and whereas the thoug'hts which are of faith, and the affections which are of
love, coijoin and separate all in the other life, therefore they vwho have been
born out of the Church. and have believed in one God, fly aw-ay from those
who are within the Church, saying that they do not believe in one God, but in
th~ree gods, and that they who do not believe in one God under a human form,
believe in no God, inasmuch as their tliought pours itself forth without determination into the universe, and thus sinks into nature, which they thereby acknowledge in the place of God. When it is asked what they mean by proceeding, when they say the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit
from the Father by the Son, they reply that proceeding is an expression of
union, and that it involves that mystery; buit the idea of thought on the subject, when it was explored, was no other than of a Inere expression, and not
of any thing. But the ideas of the angels concerning the Divine [being or
principle], concerning the trine [trinum], and concerning proceeding, differ
altogether from the ideas of tile men of the Church, by reason, as was said
above, that the ideas of thought of the angels are founded upon one, whereas
the ideas of the thought of the men of the Church are founded upon three;
the angels think, and what they think believe, that there is one God, and He
the Lord, and that His Human [principle] is the Divine Itself in form, and that
the Holy [principle] proceeding from Him is the Holy Spirit; thus that there
is a trine [triinum]. but still one. This is presented to the apprehension by the
idea concerning the angels in Heaven; an angel appears there in a hluman
form; but still there are three things appertaining to him, which make onethere is his internal, which does not appear before the eyes. there is the external  which appears, and there is the sphere of the life of his affections and
thoiights,    which diffnises itself from him to a distance; these three [things or
priniciples] matke one angel. But angels are finite and created, whereas the
Lord is infinite and increate; and inasiuch as ino idea can be had concerning
the infinite by any man, nor even by any angel, except ftom things finite,




40                   Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IV.
therefore it -is allowed to present such an example, in order to illustrate that
thiere  is a trine in one and that there is One God, and that He is the Lord, and
no other." —A. C. 9303.
You mnay possibly have  doubts as to what is said  about the difference of angelic  and human  ideas on this profound subject, ainld say
that you  have  no  sufficient evidence  of the  fact; but if the thing
asserted  is intrinsically  true, the  thoughts  of' the  angels  are  undoubtedly in accordance with it, and the intrinsic truth of what they
are  said  to  think  is certainly in  itself some  evidence that they do
think it, and consequently that Swedenborg's assertion on the suTject
is also  true.   But, after all, the  grand  question  is rather what you
and I ourht to think  on  this theme, than  what the angels do think,
although there is every likelihood that if we think  as we  ought, we
shall think as they do.  It there  is anyv truth of stupendous concern
to mortal man. it is that which we are now  considering.   The scriptural idea of God enters into  the inmost vitalities of Christian faith,
and it is vain to think of enjoying him  in heaven  so long as the idea
of his nature and perfections does not conform  to the essential verity,
for the true  idea  of God, with  its appropriate affection, is  the  very
medium   of conjunction with  him, and  this conjuenction is the essential
element of heavenly bliss.*   "The  reason," says Swedenborog, 6 "why
there is no appropriation of good with those who do not acknow ledge
the  Lord  is, because  for man'to  acknowledge his God  is the  first
principle  of religion, and  with  Christians to  acknowledge the Lord
is the  first  principle  of the  Church, for without acknowledgment
there is no communication given, consequently no faith, thus no love;
hence the primary tenet of doctrine  in the Christian Church is, that
without the Lord there  is no  salvation.   Hence it is manifestly evident, that those who do not acknowledge the Lord cannot have flith,
thus neither can they have love to God, consequently neither can
* " Inasmuch as the church at this day does not know  that conjurnctionl with the Lord
mnakes heaven, and that conjunction is effected by the ack nowledgen-et that I-Ie is the
God of heaven and earth, and at the same time l)y a life confbormnllile to his colninnildl -
ments, therefore it nmay be expedient to say soinething on this subject: le who is utterly unac quainted with the subject Inay possibly ask, what signifies conjunction? How
can acklnowledgnent and life occasion conjunction 1  Wliat need is there of' slluch acknowledwgrment arnd life. May not every one be saved I)y a bare act of mercy?  What
occasion then for any other medium  of salvation but faitl alone? Is not Go(d mercif'ul
and omnipotent? But let such aan one know, that in the spiritial world all presence is
occasioned by knowledge and acknowledgiment, and all contjl.unction by affectilon whlich
is of love; tor spaces there are nothing else but appearances accorlilu.r to si. ila.il y of
rmind, that is, of affections anid tlieir derivative thoughts; wvherelbre, when  lliy one
knows another, either fromr fame or report, or from  intercoisrse with hinm, or f'omlD conversation, or from relationship, when lie thinks of himn from an idea of tliit knowled-e,
the other!ecooTes present, altlou1gh  to all appearances he wvere a thousni-d n(t lor)-gs istamit; and if any one also loves another whomn he knows, he dwells witlh him in o:ae society,:liid if lhe loves him intimately, in one house; this is thIe state of 11 l t Ihlollt
the whole spiritual world, and tiis state of all derives its origin from n  ence, th li ttl~ Lt
is present to every one according, to love; faith and the consequent presenc-( of ti'l L)r(d
is given by mneans of knowledges of truths derived from the Word, especially coneertlilnJ
the Lord himself' there; but love and consequent conjinction is givIei by  a liIi neclt(nli~,
to His coiimmandments, for tile Lordl says,' He thalt liath nmy coinl-manidirients alnd ktcti, i1
htiem, lie it is tlhiat loveth Me, and I will love him, antd makce my abode withl tilml'   tohn
xiv. 21."-A. E. 1340.




The Divine Humanity.                     41
they be saved, which the Lord also teaches openly in John:'He
that believeth in the Son, hath eternal life; but he that believeth not
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth in him."'
And again, "The reason why they who do not from faith acknowledga the Lord, have not eternal life, is because the whole heaven is
in that acknowledgment; for the Lord is the Lord of heaven and
earth; wherefore to those who do not acqknowledge Him. heaven is
closed; and he who does not acknowledge in the world, that is. who
is within the Church, doe's hot acknowledge in the other life; such is
the state of man after death."  The acknowledgment here insisted
on is not a bare verbal assent to a proposition xx~hich conveys no
definite meaning to the mind. It is an acknowledgment founded on
a distinct intellectual perception of the truth acknowledged.  Nothing short of this is entitled to the name.
You will understand, also, that in these passages, and in Swedlenborg's writings generally, the title " Lord" is the equivalent of
"Jehovah," and is the peculiar and distinctive appellation of' Jesus
Christ, than whom neither he nor his adherents know any other Jehovah, or Lord, in the universe.  Swedenborg has placed the following sentence at the very threshold of his great vorli, the Arcanda
CGalestia, and the remark is of the utmost importance in the perusal
of every part of his writings: —" In the following xvork, by the LonRD
is solely meant Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the wvorld, who is called
the LORD without other names.  He is acknorvledged and adored as
the LoRD in the universual heaven, because he has all power in heaven and earth. He also commanded his disciples so to call him when
he said,' Ye call me LORD, and ye say well, for so I am.' And after
his resurrection his disciples called him LORD. Throughout all heaven they know no other Father but the LORD, because he and the
Father are one." This term  in Swedenborg's writings is always to
be understood as the equivalent of Jehovah.*  In the New Church,
therefore, is to be seen the incipient fulfilment of the prediction before
adverted to: " In that day there shall be one LoRD (Jehovah), and his
name one."  The propriety of this title in reference to Christ I shall
consider more at length hereafter.  The use of it in this relation is in
fact bringing forward into the Christian Church, under its last form,
the distinguishing appellation of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, the exclusive and supreme object of worship, who alone is to
be recognized in the person of Jesus Christ the Saviour.  The introduction of this name as the familiar title of Jesus, when apprehended
in its full import, is the signal of a complete revolution in the entire
scheme of Christian doctrine built upon the assumption of a threefold
distinction of persons, the second of whom makes an atonement to
the first.  No such theory of atonement can possibly stand when once
it is seen that the Jehovah of the Jew is identically one Tvith the
Jesus of the Christian; for one Divine Person cannot make all atone* WVithout the above explanation, the title of the first chapter of the treatise concerning
HIeaven and Hell would seem to announce a most obvious truism, viz., " That the Lord
is the God of Heatven." This assumnes a new phase when it is understood as asserting
that Jesus Christ is the God of heaven.




42            Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter V.
ment to himself. This result, however, 1 do not ask you to receive,
till you become convinced that it is inevitable. I announce it here
that you may have a more vigilant eye on the successive evolutions
of the argument whose object it is to establish it. And I may remark, also, by the way, that it is easy to perceive how insuperable
is the obstacle in the way of the Jewish mind in general to the adoption of Christianity, so long as it holds forth to them a view of the
Divine Being so utterly at war with all the conceptions of the Deity
which they have formed from their own Scriptures. I do not say
that they would readily embrace even the true doctrine of the incarnation of their own Jehovah, but they must necessarily be vastly
more scan(lalized by the dogma which presents him under a threefold hlpostasis.   A Trinity of Essentials in one person they might
possibly be led to concede; but a Trinity of persons, I believe, never;
and who can blame them? As to any special display of divine influence in their behalf, so far as this point is concerned, we can of
course have no hope of it, if the tenet itself is false, and that it is so
we have the same evidence that we have that the doctrine of the
Divine UInity is true; for the two we hold to be in diametrical and
everlasting antagonism with each other.
Yours, &c.
LETTER V.
JEHOVAH JESUS.
DEAR SIR,
IF the tenor of my remarks in the preceding series of Letters shall
have approved itself as resting upon a stable basis, we have obtained
an important clew, not only to the true character of the Saviour, as
being no other than the one only Jehovah, but also to the correct interpretation of those numerous passages in the Old Testament
which speak of Him as having been made visible to holy men of that
dispensation. If I have at all succeeded in my attempted solution
of the theophanies of the former economy, the conclusion reached
cannot well be any other than that they were really manifestations
of the Supreme Jehovah in his undivided person, and made through
the medium of an angel, because they could not possibly be made
in any other way. "The Divine itself," says Swedenborg, "is far
above the heavens, not only the Divine good itself, but also the
Divine truth itself, which proceeds immediately from the Divine
good; the reason why those principles are far above heaven, is because the Divine itself is infinite, and the infinite cannot be conjoined
with finites, thus not with the angels in the heavens, except by the
putting on of some finite first, and thus by accommodation to reception."




Jehovah Jesus.                      43
On the ground of what I have now advanced upon the general
subject, you will see what we are taught by Swedenborg to believe
concerning the relation which the ancient theophanies bear to the person of Christ. They were manifestations of Him only so far as he
was identically one and the same with Jehovah himself; regarding
this as the title of the, Supreme Godhead. For ourselves, we are
free to say that our minds utterly fail to grasp the idea of the. a(][earance of any Divine personage termed the " Son of God,"'who rradle
himself, by anticipations visible to the patriarchs, prophets, and holy
men of the early ages. We know of no "' Son of God," but him who
was born, as to his natural humanity, of the virgin mother, and who
became a Son simply by being thus born.
But I may here be met by the position, that the Old Testament
does in fact contain intimations respecting the "Son of God" which
abundantly warrant the inference of such a distinction of persons as
I am now endeavoring to show unfounded. Justice to the argument
requires me to advert to these passages. The result, I think, will
show that something far more decisive is demanded by the exigencies
of the theory against which I contend.
The first and most prominent text adduced by Trinitarians is Ps
ii. 7,-" Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."  In regard
to this we fully accord with Swredenborg's interpretation. "In this
assage is not meant a Son born from eternity, but the Son that was
born in time; for it is a propetical Psalm, relating to the Lord who
was to come, and therefore it is called the statute which Jehovah
declared unto David; wherefore it is written before in the same
Psalm,'I have anointed my King over Zion' (v. 6); and it follows,'I will give him the nations for an inheritance' (v. 8), and of consequence the expression, this day, does not mean from eternity, but
in time; for with Jehovah the future is present. By the Son is meant
the Lord as to his humnanity." Are you prepared to deny this to be
the true sense of the language of the Psalmist?
Another passage subsidized by theologians to the same purpose is
Prov. xxx. 4, —" Who hath ascended up into heaven or descended?
Who hath gathered the wind in his fists?  Who hath bound the
waters in a garment? Who hath established the ends of the earth?
What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?"
It is here supposed that these questions are affirmativ e of the wisdom
and power of God, whose Son is here mentioned; but this is doubtless a mistake. The questions relate to man, and imply a strong denial that any man can do these things. In the foregoing verses Agur
confesses his ignorance, and in this verse he declares that neither he
nor any other man else can perform or explain the works of God.
"What is his name or his son's name?" i. e. what is the man's name
who hath done or can do these things? or what is the name ot' his
son? Negative interrogations of this kind are frequent in the Scriptures.
Again, we are referred to Dan. iv. 25, where Nebuchadnezzar is
said to have seen " one like THE SON OF GOD." This is adduced in evidence of Christ's being a Son abstract from humanity. But it would




44               Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter V.
be strange if Nwe'were required to found our faith on the testimony
of a heathen king, a polytheist, who was then compelling men to
idolatry, and who a little while after was driven from among men for
his pride and contempt of the true God. To suppose that he knew
the Son of God- that. he knew  him to be such abstract from humanity, and yet called him  a man-whose form was like the Son of Godand farther, that he should afterwards call this same man an anrel
sent by God, as if he knew  that this coequal Son of God was also
his servant or messenger —all this is so unnatural and so unsupported
by the whole history, as to be altogether incredible.  Besides, you
cannot be ignorant that it is generally conceded by the learned, that
the proper reading is, "like a son of the gods."*  It is therefore far
more probable  that by this expression he meant an angel, as he
expressly terms him  (v. 28), and if he intended a divine person, it
was only according to the heathen mythology which abounded in
begotten gods who were considered as subordinate divinities, and as
comi[ng  down in the likeness of men, as the Lycaonians thought
Paul and Barnabas were.
Besides the above I know of no other text in the Old- Testament which lends any support to the idea of the eternal Sonship of
Christ.  Nothing in fact can be adduced to prove him to have been
a 8oai before he came in the flesh, but will, by the same course of
argument, prove him  also to have been Jesus Christ before  that
period, which is manifestly  contrary  to the  tenor of the New
Testament.  Nothing can be more explicit than  the announcement
of Gabriel to Mary,-"'Behold, thou shalt conceive and bear a Son,
and shall call his name Jesus.  He shall be great, and shall be called
TIIE SON OF THE MIOST HIGuI.  But Mary said to the angel, How shall
this be since I know not man?  And the angcel answered and said to
her, rHE HIIOLY SPIRIT SHALL COME UPON THEE, AND TIHE POWER OF THE
HIGHESTr SIIALL OVERSHADOW THlEE; wherefore also THAT HOLY THING
that is born of thee, shall be called'rTIE SON OF Gon."t  As then we find
no evidence of the existence of a Son of God from eternity, we see no
ground for the opinion that such a Son was manifested in the ancient
theophainies, which is the same as saying that they were not manifestations of what is termed the second person of the Trinity.  They
were manifestations of Jehovah, and if that term does not in itself con* " It is.greatly to be lamented, that so very an important mistranslation should remain
in the English Bible to mislead the simrple. Printed too, as it is, withl the word " Son"
colimmenced with a capital letter, none who are destitute of other means of information
can avoid supposing, that there was a p)roper Son of God then existing; whille no shadow
of ground really exists for such an imagination."-Noble's Appeal, p. 367.
t "It is not known ifi the church, but that the Son of God is another person of the
Godlhead, distinct from the person ofthe Father. Thence is the faithl concerning a Son of
God born from eternity. Because this is universally received, and is concerning God,
there is given no power or liberty of thinking about it, from any understanding, not even
of thinking what it is to be born fromn eternity; for whosoever thinks about it froom the
understanding, will surely say with himself,' This is above my apprehension, but still I
say it, because others say it, and I believe it, because others believe it.' But they may
ktiow, tliat there is no Son from eternity. but that tile Lord is froim eternity.  Wlhen it is
known what the Lord is, and what the Son is, one can also think from the understanding
concerning the triune God, ani not befbre."-Dot. of the Lord, 19.




Jehovah Jesus.                    45
vey the idea of such a threefold distinction, we must seek for the
evidence of it elsewhere, and if you know where it is to be found, I
should be grateful for having it pointed out.
Is it said that we are forced to recognize it in the peculiar use of the
term "Word" (Logos), evidently applied to Christ in his ante-incarnate
state who was " in the beginning with God, and was God?" Yet here,
if I mistake not, it will be easy to show that the Scriptures are still
conversant with the same Divine Personage, who has before been
brought to our view under the appellation of Jehovah, and who
was manifested, in the earlier ages of the world, and to the Jews,
under the form of an angel. As the subject is one of deep interest
to the theologian I shall pursue it somewhat in detail.
You are well aware of the remarkable fact that the Chaldee Targumists or Pharaphrasts, who were all Jews, wherever, in our version,
there is any intimation of the visible display of the Divine glory or
power, are accustomed to make use of the term "Shekinah," which
signifies dwelling or habitation, from the Hebrew fnt, sh(l&ta, to dwetl
or inhabit. The derivative Shekinah is used more particularly of the
divine presence, glory, or majesty,' or of the Divine itself when said
to be present to men, or converse with them, or to vouchsafe to them
his sensible and gracious aid. Accordingly the following, among
hundreds of other passages, are rendered by the Chaldee Targums of
Onkelos and Jonathan conformably to this import of the term;Ps. lxxiv. 2, "Remember thy congregation which thou hast purchased of old; this mount Zion wherein thou hast dwelt."  Chal.
"Wherein thou hast made thy Shekinah to dwell."  Num. x. 36,
"Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel."  Chal. "Return now, O Word of the Lord, to thy people Israel, make the glory
of thy Shekinah to dwell among them, and have mercy on the thousands of Israel."  Num. xi. 20. "Ye have despised the Lord which
is among you."  Chal. -"Ye have despised the Word of the Lord
whose Shekinah dwelleth among you." Htag. i. 8, "Go up to the
mountain, and bring wood, and build the house, and I will take pleasure in it, and will be glorified, saith the Lord'."  Chal. "And I will
make my Shekinah to dwell in glory."  Ps. lxxxv. 10, "His salvation is nigh them that fear him, that glory may dwell in our land."
This is distinctly explained by Aben Ezra as meaning that the
Shekinah may be established in the land. It would be easy to multiply passages to the same effect ad libitum, for even the voluminous
citations of Buxtorf do not embrace a tithe of the examples of the
usage which may be drawn from the Pentateuch alone. It is the ordinary phraseology of the Chaldee Paraphrases wherever in our version we meet with any intimation of a visible display of the divine
glory. Indeed the terms "Glory" and " Shekinah" are evidently recognized by the Targumists as convertible terms.
While this then is the current phraseology of these ancient Jewish
paraphrases in regard to the visible manifestations of Jehovah, and
to whom as visible (though not to the outward eye), and as dwelling
or Shekinizing between the Cherubim, the whole worship of the
Jewish Church was directed, it is a fact equally worthy of notice,




46                Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter V.
that the Divine Personage thus manifested is termed by them Alimnra
da-Yehovah, the Word of the Lord, of which "Logos" is the Greek
representative.  As the Shekinah was the medium  of the divine
presence and of the declaration of the divine will, and as a voice
inwardly audible frequently accompanied the manifestation, it was
not unnatural that the title "Word of the Lord," or, by way of eminence, "The Word," should come to bo habitually applied in this
connexion.  As words, either written or spoken, are the established
vehicle for conveying the thoughts and feelings of one human being
to another, so it is easy to conceive that the denomination " Word'
should have been appropriated to what was deemed a medium oi
imparting the divine thoughts and counsels to men.  The Shekinah
and the Mimra, therefore; are in Jewish diction terms employed in
most intimate connexion. with those ancient divine manifestations
which I have indicated by the term theophanies. I shall hope to
show in the sequel that the ideas which, inr their minds, were
couched under these appellations were in all probability extremely
inadequate when tried by the fundamental truth involved, yet as
the usage itself is a fact of some moment in its relations to the
general subject, I shall adduce, in tabellated form, a sufficient
number of instances to illustrate it clearly.
HEBREW.                           CHALDEE.
Genl. iii. 8. And they heard the   And they heard the voice of the TFord
voice of the Lord God walking in the of the Lord walking in the garden.
midst of the garden.
Ch. xxviii. 20, 21. And Jacob vow-   And Jacob vowed a vow to the
ed a vow, saying, If God will be with  TWord, saying, If the Word of the Lord
me, and keep me, &c., then shall the will be my help, &c., then shall the
Lord'be my God.                   Lord be my God.
Ch. xxxv.9. And God appeared unto   And the Word of the Lord appeared
Jacob again when he came out of Pa- to Jacob a second time, when he was
dan-aram; and blessed him.        coming from Padan-Aram; and blessed him.
Ex. xvi. 8.. Your murmurings are   Your murmurings are not against
not against us, but against the Lord.  us, but against the Word of the Lord.
Ch. xix. 17.' And Moses brought   And Moses brought forth the peoforth the people out of the camp to pie out of the camp to meet with the
meet with God.                     Word of the Lord.
Ch. xxx. 6. Where I will meet wth   Where I will appoint for thee my
thee.                              Word.
Lev. xxvi. 11, 12. And I will set my   And I will set my tabernacle among
tabernacle among you; and my soul you; and my Word shall not reject
shall not abhor-you. And I willwalk  you. And I will cause my Shekinah
among you and be your God.        to dwell among you, and be to you a
God.
Num. xi. 20. Because that ye have   Because ye have contemptuously
despised the Lord which is among rejected the fWord of the Lord. whose
you.                              Shekinah dwelleth among you.




Jehovah Jesus.                       47
HEBREW..                         CHALDEE.
Ch. xiv. 9. Only rebel not ye against   But rebel not ye against the Word
the Lord.                         of the Lord.
Ch. xxiii. 4. And God met Balaam.   And the Word from before the Lord
met Balaam.
Deut. i. 30. The Lord your God   The Word of the Lord thy God, who is
which goeth before you, he shill fight thy leader, shall fight for you.
for you.
Ch. i. 32, 33. Yet in this thing ye
did not believe the Lord your God,
who went in the way before you, to   And in this thing ye did not believe
search you out a place to pitch your in the Word of the Lord your God. who
tents in, in fire by night, to show you went as a leader before you, &c.
the way ye should go, and in a cloud
by day.
Ch. xiii. 18. When thou shalt heark-   If thou shalt be obedient to the
en to the voice of the Lord thy God.   Word of the Lord thy God.
We have here, if I mistake not, indubitable evidence that the
term " Logos" or "Word,'" which in Chaldee or Rabbinical usage is
most intimately related to the " Shekinah," is in fact a designation of
the very Personage whose recorded theophanies in the Old Testament
were made through the medium of an angel, and on grounds which
I have previously endeavored to explain. But I have utterly failed
in my attempted elucidations of the subject, if I have not succeeded
in showing that this Personage is indeed no other than the one only
Jehovah, the Supreme God, the Creater of the universe, and the exclusive object of all religious worship. What can more unequivocally establish this than the title given to Christ by the Seer of Patmos?-" And his name is called the WORD OF God. —And he hath on
his vesture and on his thigh, a name written, KIING OF KINGS AND
LORD OF LORDS."  Who is " King of Kings and Lord of Lords" but
Jehovah himself? Consequently, if Christ is the Word, and the
Word is Jehovah, the inference as to his sole and absolute Divinity
is unquestionable, and all ground for recognizing any allusion to a
tri-personal Trinity in this title vanishes from under our feet. As no
such distinction is implied in the term Jehovah, so none is implied in
the term Word.
Still I feel that, on the position which I assume, you are authorized to demand somewhat of a detailed explication of the language
of the Evangelist in respect to the Divine Word. This I proceed to
give, planting it, of course, on the basis of Swedenborg's theology.
I have already remarked that the principles of Love and Wisdom
comprise the all of Deity. The Divine Love is the Divine Esse,
the Divine Wisdom the Divine Existere.  So far as manifestation is
concerned, this is always predicated of the latter and never of the
former, because the Esse is always invisibly latent in the Existere.
When we speak, therefore, of the Divine Humanity we necessarily




48              Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter V.
centre our thoughts upon the Existere of Jehovah, which is Wisdom
or Truth, and from this, the idea of the human principle is inseparable.  The "Word" is but another name for the Divine Truth,
predicated especially of the Son, as Divine Good is predicated especially of the Father, and as the Divine Proceeding is predicated of
the Holy Spirit. But I will here make Swedenborg the expounder of
his own doctrine, the truth of which is to be determined by an appeal
to Scripture, in its genuine sense, and not to alleged visions.'Fromn these words,' in the beginning,' &c., it is manifest that the Lord is
from eternity God, and that He is that Lord who was born in the world; for
it is said, The Word was with God, and God was the Wordl; as also, that
withoult Him was nothing maade that lwas made; and' afterwards, that the
Word became flesh, and they saw Him. That the Lord is called the Word, is
little understood inl the chllrch; but He is called tie Word, because the Word
signifies divine truth, or divine wisdom; and the Lord is divine Truth itself,
or divine Wisdom itself; wherefore also He is called Light, concerning which
also it is said, that it caime into the world. Because divine wisdom an(l divine
love Imake one, and in the Lord were one from eternity, therefore also it is
said, In l Him vwas life, and the life wag the light of men.' Life is divine love,
and light is divine wisdom. This one is what is meant by' In the beginnl-ing
the Word was with God, and God was the Word.' Withz God is in God, for
wisdom is in love, and love in wisdom. Likewise in another place in John,'Glorify Thou Me, Father, with'thyself, with the glory which I had \with
thee before the world xwas,' (xviii. 5). W1ithl Thyself is in Thyself. Wherefore
also it is said, that God was the Worl,; and elsewhere, that the Lord is in
the Father, and the Father in Him; as also, that the Father and He are one.
Now, becautse the Word is the divine Wisdom of divine Love, it follows
that it is Jehovah hinIself, thus the Lord, by whom all things were made that
are made; for all things were created by divine' Wisdom, from divine Love."
- Doct. of the Lord, 1.
"' How the Lord is the Word, is understood by few, for they think that the
Lord can indeed enlighten and teach man by the Word, and yet that he cannot hence be called the Word: but let them know that every man is his ovwn
love, and thence his own good and his own truth, man not being a man from
any other source, and nothing else appertaining to him being man.  From
this consideration that man is his own good and his own truth, angels and
spirits are also men; for every good and truth proceeding fiom the Lord is in
its form a man: but the Lord is divine good itself and divine truth itself;thus
He is the man himself, from whom. every man is a man." —Swed. apudc Clowe3
on John, p. 11.
That by the Word in this relation is meant the Lord's Divine tnumanity, is evident from  its being said that " the Word became flesh
and dwelt among us."  This is a point which, I venture to think, I
have established in a former letter.  The Divine Humanity existing
from eternity in "first principles," descended, in the incarnation,
into "last principles," or "ultimates," or, as we may properly say, the
Alpha descended into the Omega.  He thus became an earthly man
among' earthly men, and became visible to the outward eye, as he
had been visible, in the angelic form, to the spiritual eye.  This is
doubtless what is meant by the Apostle in saying that though he
was " in the form  of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal
with God," vet "he made himself of no reputation, and took upon
him  the form  of a servant," &c.  The "form of God" is the Divine




Jehovah Jesus.                      49
Humanity in its first principles, as it exists in the Divine nature
from  eternity. But nothing in the data on which our reasoning is
founded requires the recognition of a triad of persons to make the
Scriptural testimony intelligible or consistent.  The Word is still
the Lord, or Jehovah, in the indivisible unity of his nature, and he is
the eternal Word, not because he is identical with an eternal Son,
but because he is identical with the eternal Jehovah.
But has not the title " Word" some relation to the written Word?
Undoubtedly it has. " Since truth is meant by the Word, by the
Word is meant all revelation, thus likewise the Word itself or Holy
Scripture."  This relation I cannot better present than in the language of Swedenborg. "He who understands these words,'In the
beginning,' &c., in their interior sense, may see that the Divine Truth
itself in the Word which was formerly in this world, which likewise
is in our Word at this day, is meant by the Word which was in the
beginning with God and which was God; but not the Word regarded
merely as to the words and letters of the languages in which it is
written, but as seen in its essence and life, which is from within in
the senses or meaning of its words and letters; from this life does
the Word vivify the affections of that man's will who reads it devoutly; and from the light of its life it illuminates the thought of his
understanding; therefore it is said in John,'In him (the Word) was
life, and the life was the light of man;' this constitutes the Word,
because the Word is from the Lord, and concerning the Lord, and
thus is the Lord. All thought, speech, and writing derives its essence
and life from him who thinks, speaks, and writes; the man with all
that he is being therein; but in the Word the Lord alone is."
You will probably find yourself compelled to demur to this explicit
declaration of identity between the revealed Word and its Divine
Author, but farther reflection will scarcely fail to bring you to the
admission of the fact. The grounds of the position I have stated in
a somewhat formal manner in a former production ("Statement of
Reasons," &c.), and as the language suits my present purpose you
will allow me to quote it: "He (Swedenborg) declares, that the
Word is not only from the Lord, but is the Lord, just as any written
or spoken communication of a man is a'form of the man himself. A
man's vocal speech is an emanation from  the man himself; he is
essentially in his utterance; and the case is not altered by its being
embodied in written language. A letter addressed by one person to
another, is as truly a going forth of his spirit, in the form of words,
as if the communication were made by spirit coming in contact with
spirit in the spiritual world. The Divine WNord is the divine voice
speaking to man, and the Divine voice is as much a form of the
Divine being as a man's voice is a form of his being. But the human voice is effected by the medium of the undulations of the atmosphere, which of course cannot hold in respect to the Deity. The
aerial sound, however, in man's case, is nothing more than a vehicle
for conveying the thought and affection of the speaker's mind, and
cannot be needed for the communication of spirits disembodied. They
then communicate by impressing themselves upon each other. Now
4




50              Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter V.
God is a spirit, and in our present corporeal state he comes into communion with our spirits through the medium of written speech, but
this speech is Himself, in his essential Love and Truth, and whatever is in Himself is in his speech, that is, in his Word, just as Swedenborg remarks in a passage already quoted, that'every thought,
speech, and writing derives its essence and life from him who thinks,
speaks, and writes, the whole man with his quality being in those
things; but in the Word isthe Lord alone.' The Word of God therefore is the living Divine Truth, and is at any one moment just as
really the present utterance, expression, or emanation of the Divine
Being, as when flowing into the minds of the sacred penmen  by
whom  it was indited, as they were moved (ocpo/Oevl, acted, borne, or
carried away) by the Holy Ghost.  But if the Divine Word is the
Divine Lord, it is impossible to conceive that his inmost affections
and thoughts-in a word, his essential Divinity —should not be in it,
and consequently that there should not be a depth of import entirely
transcending the sense of the outward letter." —P. 118.
In another paragraph of his writings, Swedenborg, in speaking of
this passage in John, says; "Inasmuch as this has been understood
in no other way than to mean, that God taught man by the Word;
therefore it has been explained by an expression of elevation, which
involves that the Lord is not the Word itself: the reason is, because
it was not known, that by the Word is meant the divine truth of the
divine good, or, what is the same thing, the divine wisdom of the
divine love. In what manner the Lord is the divine truth of the
divine good, shall here also be briefly shown: every man is not a
man from his face and body, but from the good of his love, and from
the truths of his wisdom; and whereas man is a man from  these
principles, every man likewise is his own truth and his own good, or
his own love and his own wisdom, and without these he is not a
man; but the Lord is good itself and truth itself, or, what is the
same thing, love itself and wisdom itself; and these are the Word,
which'in the beginning was with God, and which was God, and
which was made flesh.' " —Div. Prov. 172.  The evident intimation in this passage is, that as the most proper light in which to view
man is in his first principles as constituted of love and wisdom, and
apart from his bodily being, so also in regard to the Lord himself,
we are to elevate our thoughts to what he is in his essential nature,
that is, as infinite Love and infinite Wisdom; and not only so, but
we are always to conceive of him as acting according to the principles
of his nature.*  Hence it is impossible to form any adequate idea of
* The following extract from De Guays' " Letters to a Man of the World," presents a
striking view of the analogy between the Word of God and the word of man, considered
as a creative agency.
" Man having been created in the image of God, every thing which exists in man, so
far as he remains in the order of his creation, must be the image of something whlich exists in God; so there must be a kind of analogy between the word of Man and the Word
of God. Let us see if this analogy confirms what has been said concerning the Word of
God. We have said that the Word in its principle, or the Logos, created the universe,
that is to say, all that God has made. Is it the same with the word of man relatively to




Jehovah Jesus.                            51
the process of creation, unless it be regarded as the normal operation  of these principles.  But Love and Wisdom  must necessarily
operate by emanation or influx, so that when it is said, in the present connexion, "that all things were made by him, and without him
was not any thing made that was made," we are to recognize the
legitimate operation of the Divine Truth or Wisdom ultimating itself,
by its own laws, in the material universe. Accordingly Swedenborg
says,
" Scarce any one knows at this day that there is any power in truth, for it
is only supposed that it is only a word spoken by some one who is in power,
which on that account must be done, consequently the truth is only as breathing from the mouth, and as sound in the ear; when yet truth and good are the
principles of all things in both worlds, the spiritual and the natural, by which
principles the universe was created, and by which the universe is preserved;
and likewise by which man was made; wherefore those two principles are
all in all. That the universe was created by Divine Truth is plainly said in
John,'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, all
things were made by Him.' And in David,' By the Word of Jehovah were the
heavens made,' Ps. xxxiii. 6; by the Word in both cases is meant the divine
truth. Inasmuch as the universe was created by Divine Truth. therefore also
the universe is preserved by it; for as subsistence is perpetual existence, so
preservation is perpetual creation."-T. C. R. 224.
This is confirmed by the fact that the original word, ErYEVTO,
egeneto, were made, does not properly signify created in its ordinary
acceptation, but became — " all things became by him," —and I am
fully prepared to accede to the views of Professor Lewis in his
"Platonic Theology," where he clearly intimates, in his elaborate discussion of the distinctive sense of the  verbs Eti, to be, and rvopal,
to become, that the true sense of creation comes very near to that of
generation (yvmnL,, genesis), or becoming.*  We claim, therefore, to be
occupying the soundest philosophical ground when we maintain that
what is termed creation on the part of Jehovah is a process of emanation from himself, who is the first, absolute, only, self-existing substance. Matter is the elaboration of spirit, or, in other words, spirit
has the potency of clothing itself in material forms. The most solid
substances on our globe are the result of the combination of gases;
the gases, therefore, must be conceived as of prior formation; but
all that man does? By the Word or Logos creating we understand the Divine Wisdom
of God acting from the Divine Love or Will of God. Man's word, analogous to the Logos, is, then, the understanding acting from the will, or what is the same thing, thought
acting from affection. Now it is evident that all that man does is done by his thought
from his affection; every work of man is then produced by his word  Thus considered,
the word of man is not only that which he expresses, whether by sounds and articulations, or by the physiognomy of the countenance and gestures, but moreover all that
which is produced by him; so that this word of man is the man himself, as the Word
(Logos) is God Himself; for will and thought are man, as Love Itself and Wisdom Itself are God."-Letters,'c., 2d Series, Letter 3d.
* This distinction is very clearly marked in our Lord's declaration, John viii. 58, " Before Abraham was (yeveaOat) I am (Ept);" i. e. before Abraharr became. The same word
is applied to our Lord himself as the Son of God, Gal. iv. 4, " God sent forth his Son
made (yerosevrov) of a woman;" i. e. who became by a woman. It is in several cases thus
translated in our version.




52                Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter V.
they are themselves the product of solar heat and light, and the heat
and light of the natural sun are the effect of spiritual heat and
light, and these are the Divine Love and Wisdom.  To this then
we come at last.  We hold it to be impossible, on just grounds, to
avoid the conclusion, that every thing created is from  a spiritual
origin, that is to say developed from  the Love and Wisdom  of Jehovah; and this process never ceases, because these principles ever
energize. The creation of the universe is as truly going on at this
moment as it was millions of ages ago, for the Divine Love and
Wisdom  can never intermit their activities.*  It doubtless seems to
our limited view, as if' the work of creation were finished, and preservation alone could now be attributed to the Most High.  But subsistence is perpetual existence, and perpetual existence is perpetual
creation.t If we could suppose an individual of our race to have
been introduced upon the globe myriads of centuries ago, in some of
the immensely remote geological periods, and to have lived out the
common measure of human life at the present day, he would doubtless have had as strong an impression of the completed state of the terrestial creations as we now have.  Yet the work was then going on,
as it is still going on, by incessant changes and new combinations.
Every thing is in the process of becoming by virtue of the same laws
which were operative from the outset. But the cycles are so vast —
the sweep so boundless-the evolutions so slow-that the process to
us seems to have become stationary.
I return in my next, to the general subject.
Yours, &c.
* " Were what is spiritual to be separated from what is natural, that which is natural
would be annihilated. All things derive their origin in this mode. Every thing, both in
general and in particular, is front the Lord. From Him is the celestial principle; by
the celestial from Him exists the spiritual principle; by the spiritual the natural; and by
the natural the corporeal and sensual principles;, and as each thus exists from the Lord,
so also does it subsist, for, as is acknowledged, subsistence is perpetual existence. They
who conceive otherwise of the existence and origin of all things, as do the worshipers
of nature, who derive them all from her, have adopted such fatal principles, that the
phantasies of the beasts of the forest may be said to possess more of truth; yet there are
mapy such persons who seem to'themselves to excel the rest of mankind in wisdom."A. C. 775.
t " The case is with influx, as with existence and subsistence; nothing exists from
itself, but from what is prior to itself, thus finally all things from the First, that is, from
that which is, which is Esse and Existere from Itself; and also from the Same all things
subsist, for the case is with subsistence as with existence, inasmuch as to subsist is perpetually to exist."-A. C. 6040.




Jehovah Jesus.                        53
LETTER VI
JEHOVAH JESUS.
DEAR SIR,
THE result of our investigations thus far has been, to establish the
conclusion that all evidence is wanting which shall go to prove the
existence of any such divided personality in the Godhead as is supposed on the tri-personal theory. The Divine appearances undei the
old economy were appearances of the absolute Jehovah himself,
under the form  of angel.  That these appearances were preludes or
anticipations of the Lord's advent in the flesh, is undoubtedly true,
but not of his advent in any other character than that of the supreme
and unipersonal Jehovah.  It becomes then a point of importance to
establish the identity of Jesus of N'azareth with the Jehovah of the
Old Testament, and the most obvious mode of doing this is to show
that the title " Lord," so frequently bestowed upon Christ by the New
Testament writers, is an express confirmation of this identity.  I
would not imply by this that such a process of proof is absolutely indispensable to my argument, for it in fact follows by necessary consequence from all that I have hitherto said, if there is any reason to
believe that such a personage as Christ is announced in the Old Testament.  Still, as the evidence is ample, I proceed to adduce it.  In
assuming this position, however, I would not be understood to deny
that the term  " Lord" is often used even in reference to Christ, in a
lo-wer sense, as'an honorary compellation equivalent to "Sir" or
"Master,"-a usage for the most part easily determinable from the
context. But it is, in my view, equally beyond dispute, that in a multitude of passages the title in question is most unequivocally bestowed
upon the Saviour in such a way as to compel the inference that he
can be no other than the Jehovah of Moses and the Prophets.  As
the settlement of a principle is the object aimed at, it will not be necessary to multiply instances to a great extent. What is proved of
a few will probably be admitted to be proveable of a great many
more of the same class. I present the examples in parallel columns.
OLD TESTAMENT.                    NEW TESTAMENT.
Mal. iii. 1. Behold, I will send my   Mark i. 1-3. As it is written in the
messenger, and he shall prepare the prophets, Behold, I send my messenway before me: and the Lord (Jeho- ger before thy face, which shall prevah), whom ye seek, shall suddenly  pare tlhy way before thee; the voice
come to his temple, even the messen- of one crying in the wilderness, Preger of the covenant, wvhom ye delight pare ye the way of the Lord, make
in: behold, he shall come, saith the his paths straight.
Lord of hosts.
Mal. iii. 1. Behold, I will send my   Luke i. 76. And thou, child, shalt be
messenger, and he shall prepare the  called the Prophet of thle Highest, for
way before me.                    thou shalt go before the face of the
Lord to prepare his ways.




54             Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VI.
OLD TESTAMENT.                      NEW TESTAMENT.
Ts. xl. 3. The voice of him  that   Matt. iii. 3. For this is he that was
crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye  spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saythe way of the Lord (Jehovah), make  ing, The voice of one crying in the
straight in the desert a highway for wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the
our God.                            Lord, make his paths straight.
Is. xliv. 6. Thus saith the Lord (Jehovah), the King of Israel, and his   Rev. xxii. 13. I (Jesus) am Alpha
Redeemer the. Lord  (Jehovah) of and Omega, the beginning and' the
hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; end, the first and the last.
and besides me there is no God.
Is. vi., 5. Then said I, Wo is me! for
I am undone; because I ant a man of'  John xii. 41. These things said
unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst Esaias, when he saw  his (Christ's)
of a people of unclean lips; for mine  glory, and spake of him.
eyes have seen the King, the Lord
(Jehovah) of hosts.
Jer. xxiii. 6. In his days Judah shall   1lCor. i. 30. But of him are ye in
be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto
and this is. his name whereby he shall us wisdom, and righteousness, and
be called, the Lord (Jehovah) our sanctification, and redeinption:
Righteousness.
Jer. ix. 24. But let him that glorieth
glory in this, that he understandcleth
and knoweth me, that I am the Lord    v. 31. That, according as it is writ(Jehovah), which  exercise loving- ten, He that glorieth, let him glory in
kindness, judgment, and righteous- the Lord.
ness, in the earth: for in these things
I delight, saith the Lord (Jehovah).
Zech. xii. 4. In that day saith the    John xiv. 37. They shall look on
Lord (Jehovah), v. 10, they shall look  him (Christ) whom they have piercon me whom they have pierced.       ed.
Is. xl. 10. Behold the Lord (Jeho-   Rev. xii. 12. Behold, I (Jesus) come
vah) God will come —his reward is quickly, and mny reward is with me.
with him.                           v. 20. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Is. xliii. 3, 11. For I am  the LORD
thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy    1 Pet. iii. 18. But grow  ill grace,
Saviour: I gave Egypt. for thy rain- and in the knonwledge-of our Lord and
sorn, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.    Saviour Jesus Christ.
I, even I, am  the LORD (Jehovah);   Luke ii. 11. For unto' you is born
and besides me there is no Saviour.   this day. in the city of David, a SaIs. xlv. 21. A just God and a Sa- viour, which is Christ the Lord.
viour; there is none beside me.
Hos. i. 7. I will have mercy on the    Lul]e ii. 11. For unto you is born
house of Judah, and will save them  this day, in the city of David, a Saby the Lord (Jehovah) their God.     viour, uwhich is Christ the Lord.




Jehovah Jesus.                        55
OLD TESTAMENT.                   Nxw TESTAMENT.
Ps. cii. 25. Of old hast thou laid the   Heb i. 10. Thou, Lord, in the beginfoundations of tile earth: and the hea- ning hast laid the foundation of the
vens are the work of thy hands.   earth; and th'e heavens are the works
of thy hands.
Is. xlv. 23. I have sworn by myself,   Rom. xiv. 11, 12. For we shall all
the word is gone out of my mouth in stand before the judgment seat of
righteousness, and shall not return. Christ. For it is written, As I live,
That unto Me every knee shall bow, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow
and every tongue shall swear.    to me.
Ps. xxiv. 8. Who is the King of   1 Cor. ii. 8. Which none of the
Glory? the Lord (Jehovah) strong and princes of this world know: for had
mighty, the Lord (Jehovah) mighty in they linown it, they would not have
battle.                          crucified the Lord of glory.
Deut. x. 17. For the Lord (Jehovah)   Rev. xvii. 14. These shall make war
your God is God of gods, and Lord of with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall
lords, a mighty and a terrible.  overcome them; for he is Lord of
lords, and King of kings.
What remains from this array of testimony but a cordial resting
in the conclusion announced by the apostle, Phil. 2, 9-1 1, " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which
is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should
bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the
earth; and that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST is
LORD, to the glory of God the Father" (i. e. Jehovah).
I am not aware that in the above citations there is any one as to
which there can be any reasonable doubt that the reference is distinctly to Jesus Christ, " the only Lord God, and (i. e. even) our Lord
Jesus Christ." Several of them are expressly explained of him by
the sacred writers as the Personage to whom the title properly pertains, and by parity of reasoning numerous others obviously demand
the same interpretation. If I am warranted in assigning to them
this reference, the conclusion that naturally yields itself is, that in
these passages, at least, the Saviour of men is distinguished by an
appellation the highest that can be applied to the Supreme Deity,
and which is, in fact, usually denominated his incommunicable name.
The dignity of the Godhead knows no more august appellation than
that of Jehovah, and yet nothing short of a torturing criticism can
deny the attribution of this title to the Saviour of the world, or refuse
to recognize in him the being justly denominated JEHOVAH JESUS. And
to the present point of the discussion I have reserved the reference to a passage which is perhaps entitled to carry with it more
weight than any of the preceding. I allude to Rev. i. 8, "I am
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty," —
evidently the language of Christ, as the same declaration occurs Rev.




56              Letter-s to a Trinitarian.-Letter VI.
xxil., where there can be no doubt as to the speaker.  The word
Kvpros, Kurios, Lord, here represents the Hebrew jrnl, Yehovah which
is compounded of the past, present, and future tense of the verb  et,,
hayak, to be, of which the following words-" which is, and which
was, and which is to come" —are plainly a definition, while the last
epithet " Almighty" (iaroKpartop), answers obviously to hi, tezbaoth,
hosts, of which it is the usual rendering in the Septuagint.  The two
terms, therefore, " Lord of Hosts," are distinctly defined.  There is
the less doubt. of this from the fact, that in the parallel passages, Is.
xliv. 6, this title iA expressly given; —" Thus saith the Lord the King
of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts; I am  the first, and I
am the last; and besides me there is no God."  Now if this is an
assertion of the exclusive Deity of the speaker, as is evident from the
language, and yet the same character is expressly claimed for Jesus
the Saviour, can more than one inference possibly be drawn?  The
entire clause, therefore, is an expIanation, for the Greek reader, of
the Hebrew hnxs:,i,,N, Yehovah tzebaoth, or Lord of hosts, with the
unequivocal intimation that this title belongs to Jesus Christ. By
being the Lord, he is of necessity the Lord of hosts, as the titles are
of equivalent import. It would seem difficult, then, to indicate any
thing as wanting to establish completely the point for which I contend, viz. the absolute identity of Jehovah and Jesus.
I will here adduce a passage from Swedenborg by way, not of
simple authoritative declaration, but of confirmation, as I venture
to regard the truth affirmed as sufficiently established from other
sources.
"In the word of the New Testament, with the Evangelists and in the Apocalypse, Jehovah is nowhere named, but for Jehovah it is said Lord, and this from
hidden causes, of which we shall speak presently. - That in the Word of the
New Testament it is said Lord instead of Jehovah, may appear evident with
Mark:'Jesus said the first (primary) of all the commandments is, Hear 0
Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy thought, and with
all thy strength,' Mark xii. 29, 30; which is thus expressed in Moses;' Hear
O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strenth,' Dent. vi.
4, 5;' where it is manifest that it is said Lord for Jehovah. In lile mainner in
John:'Behold a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne; and
round about the throne were four animals full of eyes before and behind, each
had for himself six wings round about, and within full of eyes; and they said
Holy, holy, hdly, Lord God Omnipotent,' Apoc. iv. 2. 6, 8; which is thus expressed in Isaiah:' [ saw thli Lord sitting on a throne high and lifted up; the
seraphim were standingT ablove it, each had six wings; and one cried to another, Holy, holy, holy, Jehovah Zebaoth,' vi. 1, 3, 5. 8 there it is said Lord for
Jehovah, 6r Lord God Omnipotent for Jehovah Zebaoth; that the four animals are
seraphim or cherubim, is plain from Ezeltiel, chap. i. 5, 13, 14, 15, 19; chap.
x. 15. That in the New Testament the Lord is Jehovah, appears also from
several other passages, as in Lule:' The angel of the Lord appeared to Zacharias,' i. 11; the angel of the Lord for the angel of Jehovah. In the same evangelist, the angel said to Zacharias concerning his son:' Many of the sons of
Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God,' i. 16; to the Lord their God, for to
Jehovah God. Again, the angel said to Mary concerning Jesus:'HIe shall be
great, and shall be called the Soni of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give
unto him the throne of David,' i. 32; the Lord God for Jehovah God. Again:




Jehovah Jesus.                          57'Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath exalted itself
on God my Saviour,' i. 46, 4'7; where the Lord also is for Jehovah. Again:'Zacharias prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,' i. 68: where
the Lord God is for Jehovah God. Again' The angel of the Lord stood nearthem
(the shepherds), and the glory of the Lord shone round about them,' ii. 9; the
angel of the Lord and the glory of the Lord, for the angel of Jehovah and the
glory of Jehovah. In Mattllew:' Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord,' xxi. 9; chap. xxiii. 39; Luke xiii. 34; John xii. 13; in the name of the
Lord, for in the name of Jehovah: besides many other passages; as Llle i. 28;
chap. ii. 15, 22, 23, 24, 29, 38, 39; chap. v. 17; Marklxii. 9 11. Amongst the
hidden canses' that they called Jehovah Lord, were also, that if it had been
declared at that time, that the Lord was the Jehovah so often mentioned in
the Old Testamenlt, it wold nriot have been received, because it would -not have
been believed; and further, because the Lord was not made Jehovah as to his
human also, until he had in every respect united the Divine Essence to the
humana, anll the humlan to the Divine; the plenary unition was effected after
in the last tetnptation, which was that of the cross, wherefore the disciples
after the resnlrrection always called him Lord, John xx. 2, 13, 15, 18, 20. 25;
chap. xxi. 7. 12. 15, 16, 17, 20; Mark xvi. 19, 20; and Thomas said,' Mv Lord
and my God,' John xx. 28: and inasmuch as the Lord was the Jehovah, wvho is
so often mentioned il the Old Testament, therefore also he said to the disciples,' Ye call mie Master and Lord, and ye say right, for I am,' John xiii.
13. 14, 16 by which words is sia'nlified that he was JehovahL God. That the
Lord was Je/emoah, is understood also by the words of the angel to tile shepherds,' Unto you is born to-day a Saviour. who is Christ the Lord,'l. Luke ii.
11; where Christ is for the Messiah, the Antointed, the King, and Lo-rd for
Je/ovactl. They who examine the  Vord'without much attention, cannot know
this, believiIng that ouir Saviounr like othlers, was calledl Lord merely from respect and veneration, when yet he was so called from this, that he was Jehovalh.'" —-A. C. 2921.
From this it appears that the common rendering of Jehovah in the
Old'lestament is by Lord in the New, and this usuage is obviously
derived from  the Septuagint where Kupes, Kurios, Lord, is employed
in numberless instances for n-,, Yehovah.  Thus, for instance, as a
sample of multitudes of similar cases, Ps. lxxiii. 18, " Thou, whose
name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High in all the earth."  Ex. vi.
9, "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the
name of God Almigh-ty (Shaddai); but. by my name Jehovah was I not
known to them."  In these passages the original for.Jehovah is rendered in the Septuagint by Lord, and as the New Testament writers
followed this version, they undoubtedly by this title understood the
proper name of God, Jehovah.  Moreover, it is made very clear both by
Pearson (Creed, p. 234) and Hengstenberg (Christology, vol. 1. p.
161-187), that the ancient Jews attributed the name Jehovah to their
expected Messiah.  Thus the former adduces the following remarkable testimony from  Rabbinical sources; —" The Scripture calleth
the name of Messias, Jehovah our righteousness."  "God calleth the
Messias by his own name, and his name is Jehovah."  "What is the
name of the Messias? R. Abba said, Jehovah is his name."  But it
is well known that the Jews worshiped but one God in one person,
and if Jesus Christ was the true Messiah, they at least could never
have regarded him  as the second of a trinity of' persons, for by the
term Jehovah they could never have understood any other than the
one Supreme Deity.




58            Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VI.
The result of the whole, if I am not mistaken, is, that the title
"Lord" (Kurios), though like its Hebrew counterpart Adon, Adonai,
often used as a mere term of civil respect, has, in the New Testament
usage, when spoken of the Saviour, the dominant import of supreme
divinity. The Lord Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ the true and only
Jehovah, and as Jehovah is one without distinction of persons, so not
the slightest trace of any such distinction can be properly recognised
in any thinog that is revealed of the character and offices of Christ.
As to the objection to this view founded upon his economical relations to the great scheme of redemption, in which he speaks of himself, and is represented by the sacred writers, as sent by the Father —
as doing the Father's will and not his own-as inferior to the Father
-as praying to him —as receiving glory and honor from him-all
this will form the subject of future communications, in which I shall
endeavor to show its entire consistency with everything hitherto advanced in respect to the absolute unity and unapproached supremacy
of his nature.
To one grand result of the whole discussion I cannot but here advert. You will readily perceive that the same train of evidence
which makes the Jehovah of the Old Testament the Jesus of the
New, makes, of course, the Jesus of the New the Jehovah of the
Old.  It therefore establishes a perfect identity of Divine person and
unity of worship, in the true Church, from Adam down to the present day. The very same Being, in his immutable grandeur, is presented to our contemplation in every period of the Divine dispensations, so that by christianizing the heathenism of Pope's-"Jehovah,
Jove, or Lord," and reading it "Jehovah, Jesus, Lord," —we recognize
under the triple denomination the one God whose worship hallowed
the garden of Eden, and the temple of Jerusalem, and still consecrates the true churches of Christendom.  We have at once also a
satisfactory clew to all such passages as the following: —" Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in
Egypt." —" The rock that followed them was Christ." "Neither let
us tempt Christ as some of them tempted, and were destroyed by
serpents." This title is indeed proleptically employed, but after the
evidence above adduced there would seem to be no room to doubt
the identity of the person. It was clearly he who was "to come
forth from Judah, a Ruler of Israel; whose,roiris forth have been
from of old, from everlasting;" i. e. as we believe to be the true
import of the words, whose manifestations —whose prelusory theophanies —have been from of old, from the earliest periods of recorded
time.
Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has been therefore the manifested God friom the remotest ages of human history. This one and
immutable God, devoid of all personal distinction, is the august
I AM, or self-existent Deity, who was before Abraham, and who revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush, proclaiming the name
of Jehovah as his " memorial for ever."  That this being is identically the same with the Jesus of the New Testament, the predicted
Messiah of the Jews, is the grand paramount truth of the inspired




Jchovah Jesus.                          59
oracles, the denial of which leaves those divine documents shorn of
their essential glory and the hopes of human redemption  a very
mockery. Who remains to accomplish it, when the language affirming a God made flesh, though no more expressive language ascertains
the existence of a God at all, is frittered away in forced and jejune
explanations aiming to Obliterate the idea of theanthropism from the
minds of men?* We can indeed find some apology for this extreme
of the humantarian, in the equally gross error of the tripersonal,
dogma, revolting no less to Scripture than to reason, but we scruple
not to say that the reaction from that violent position has transcended
its legitimate limit, and that the mind of Unitarian Christendom must
oscillate backward to the point where it is met by the sublime annunciation of Unity and Trinity in one person, and that Person "the
Word made flesh and dwelling among us."  This, we are persuaded,
is the common ground on which the Unitarian and the Trinitarian
must eventually meet; and as there must be mutual recession, so
there must be mutual concession. The Trinitarian now claims what
the Unitarian can never admit, and what he ought not to admit-the
doctrine of three persons. The Unitarian now denies what the,
Trinitarian can never forego, and what he is entitled to insist upon —
the supreme and absolute divinity of Jesus Christ. The fatal error
of Trinitarians has been to argue the Divinity of Christ on grounds
that supposed a Trinity of Persons; that of Unitarians, to maintain
the Unity of the Godhead in the denial of the Divinity of Jesus.  Alas!
for the almost infinite mischiefs wrought to the entire scheme of
Christianity by the use of the word " persons." It is this unhappy
term, more than any thing else, which has thrown these two portions
of Christendom into such direct antagonism with each other. We
cannot, however, but deem it matter of felicitation that a way is
opened, through the sublime developments of the New Church, for
the making of the twain one.  Swedenborg has shown how the two
systems may harmonize their respective truths, and that in such a
way as at the same time to secure, in the most eminent degree, all
the practical interests of the Christian life, and it would be a weakness unworthy of both parties to suffer the mere force of prejudice
against his name to neutralize the promptings to a union so devoutly
to be wished.
I close my letter with an extract from this illuminated teacher of
the last ages.
" Because the Lord, by the passion of the cross, fully glorified his Human,
that is, united it to his I)ivine, and thus made his Human Divine, it follows,
that He is Jehovah and God, also as to both. Wherefore in the Word, in many
places, He is called Jehovah, God, and' the Holy One of Israel, the Redeemer,
* "The Divine itself, the Divine Human, and the Holy Proceeding, are the same as
the Lord, and the Lord the same as Jehovah. There are none who separate this Trine
which is in One, but they who say that they acknowledge One Suprerme Being (Els),
the Creator of the universe, which thing is forgiven those who are without the Church
but they who are within the Church and say thus, do not in fact acknowledge any God,
whatever they rmay profess or suppose; still less do they acknowledge the Lord."-A.
C. 2156.




60               Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VI.
Saviour, and Former.          From these passages it may be seen, that the Divine of the Lord, which is called the Father, and here Jehovah and God, and the
Divine Hulman which is called the Son, and here Redeemer and Saviour, also
Former, that is, Reformer and Regenerator, are not two but one; for not only
is it said, Jehovah God anId the Holy One of Israel, the Redeemer and Saviour;
but also it is said, Jehovah the Redeemer adl Saviour; yet also it is said,'1 am  Jehovah, and beside Me there is no Saviolr.'  From which it manlifestly appears, that the Divine and Human in the Lord are one person, and
that the Hnlman is also Divine; for the Redeemer and Saviour of the world
is no other than the Lord as to the Divine Human, whllicl is called the Son: for
redemption and salvation constitute the proper attribute of his Human, which
is called merit and righteousness; for his Human endu red temptations andl the
passion of the cross, and thus by the Human He redeemed and saved. Now
because, after the union of the Human with the Divine in Himself, which was'like that of the soul and body in man.'there were no longer two but one person, according to the doctrine of the Christian world, therefore the Lord, as to
both, is Jehovah and God; wherefore it is sometimes said, Jehovah and the
Holy one of israel, the Redeemer and Savio.ur, at other times, Jehovah the
Redeemer and Saviour. as may be seen from the pussa-ges above quoted.  It
is said, tile Saviour Christ; Lunke ii. 10, 11; John iv. 42. God and the God of
Israel, the Saviour and Redeemer; Luke i. 47  Isaiah xtv. 14, 15: liv. 5; Psalm
lxxviii. 45. Jehovah the Holy One of Israel, the Saviour and RIedeemler;
Isaiah xli. 14; xliii. 3, 11, 14, 15; xlviii. 17: xlix. 7; liv. 5. Jehovah, the
Saviyor, Redeemrer, and Former; xliv. 6; xlvii. 4; xlix. 26; liv.8; lxiii. 16;
Jeremiah 1. 34; Psalmd lxxviii. 35; cxxx. 7. 8; 2 Saimuel xxii. 2. 3. Jehovah,
God, the Redeemer and Saviour, and besides Me there is no other; Isaiah xliii.
11 xliv. 6; x1v. 14, 15, 21, 22  Hosea xiii. 4." —Doct. of the Lord. 34.
"' That God and Man in the Lord, according to the doctrine, are not two, but
one. person, and'altogether one, as the soul aiid body are one, appears clearly
from many things which He said; as, that the Father and He are one; that
all thibigs of the Father are his, and all his the Fattler's; that He is in the
Father, anld the Father ill Himn; that all thinugs are given into his h'and;  that
He has all power; that He is the God of heaven atid earth;  that whosoever
believes in Him  has eternal life; and further, that the Divine aind Human
ascendled into heaven, and that, as to both, He sits'at the right hand of God,
that is, that He is Almighty; and many more things which were addulced
above fronm the Word, concerning his Divine HIlnman, wvhicl-h all testify that
Gou. is one as well in, person as inL Essence, in whlom is a Tirinity, an.ld trhat tlhat God is
the Lord. The reason why these things concerning the Lord are now for the
first time made publicly known,   is, because it is foretold in the Revelation,
xxi. and xxii. that a new church should be institute(d by the Lord, at the end
of the former, in which this should be the primnary thinl.  This chuli'rcll is
what is there meant by the New Jerusalem, into whvlich none can elter, but
tlhose who acknowledge  the Lord alone as God of heaven and earth.  And
this I can aver, that tile universal heaven acknowledges the Lord alontie; and
that vwhosoever does not aclknowledge Him. is not adntitted into heaveni; for
heaven is. heaven from the Lord. This acknowledgment itself from love and
faith, causes all there to be ill the Lord, anid the Lord in them. as the Lord himself teaches in John:'Il that day ye shall know. that I am  in my Fatlier,
and ye in Me, and I in you,' xiv. 20. And againl:'Abide inll Me, and I in you.
I am the ville, ye are the branches; he that abideth in Me alid I in him, tile
same bringethl forth mnieh fruit; for witl-lhout Me ye cannot do any thilng.  If
a mali abide not in Me. he is cast out;' xv. 4-6; xvii. 22, 23. That this was
not seen from the Word before, is, because, if it had been seen, still it wsrold
Inot have been received." —Ib. 60, 61.
Yours, &c.




The Incarnation.                   61
LETTER VII.
THE INCARNATION.
DEAR SIR,
THE results already reached in the foregoing discussion, though
highly momentous in themselves, still leave many important phases
of the subject unconsidered. The conclusion announced —I trust on
legitimate and unimpeachable grounds-that Jesus of Nazareth is
the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Lord of the universe, the one
only and true God, in whom is concentrated a Trinity of Essentials
indicated by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is doubtless, if
sound, the fundamental fact of the revelations contained in the Bible;
and yet it is a conclusion which -must stand in perfect consistency
with every other truth relating to his person and work, as the author
and accomplisher of redemption. To this department of the subject,
I fnow address myself, and I feel impelled to offer a general remark
in regard to such a course of reasoning as that in which I have been
thus far engaged, viz., that if, on the whole, fairly and legitimately
conducted, and the mind recognizes the truth of the result, we are
authorized to abide by it. We are not required to forego our conclusions simply because we do not clearly perceive, at the present
moment, how they may be made to consist with other results which
seem to be of equal validity aiid yet of adverse bearing. Such an
apparent conflict of issues ought doubtless to enforce the most rigid
requisition of evidence in support of a conclusion that seems satisfactory, though, to our own minds, coming short of demonstration;
but if upon the whole we see no way of avoiding it, and that if
there be any yielding, it must be on the other side; then we say that
the true course is to adhere firmly to what is firmly established, and
to rest in the assurance that the seemingly opposite view may, when
more fully apprehended, be seen entirely to harmonize with it. If,
for instance, the process of proof in regard to the absolute identity
of Jehovah and Jesus is fairly beyond question, then a moral compulsion rests upon us to interpret those passages of the Word, which
seem to hold a different language, in a sense consistent with that
unity of Divine essence and person which we have previously certified to our own minds. I am well aware of the difficulty that you
will doubtless find, in the outset, in your attempts to solve the appar.
ent problem which our main position sets before you. The grand
ideal which you have formed of the design and genius of the Christian system, involves as an essential element, a certain disjunction
and duality of the Father and the Son, which is virtually annulled in
the view that I have now presented, so that you feel that its adoption
would be not so much a modification, as a total subversion, of all
your most cherished theories in regard to the redemption and salvation of men. You perceive at a glance, that the established dogma




6f2          Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VII.
of vicarious atonement sinks at once out of sight when the position
is admitted, that Jesus Christ is as truly the Father as the Son, which
of course he must be if he is the veritable Jehovah, and which, in
the sequel, I shall show still more clearly that he is. This result, if
admitted, cannot fail to give a violent shock to your pre-conceptions,
and it would not be strange, if under the first effects of the concussion, your faith should so " reel like a drunken man" that you should
find yourself for a time desperabund, and ready to renounce the hope
of ever attaining the truth on the most momentous of all themes.
But cooler reflection will restore the equilibrium of reason and religion. It is impossible for any honest mind to remain in an attitude
of permanent rebellion against a clear and irresistible induction
drawn from both the spirit and the letter of the Holy Oracles. In
the present case, I will venture to say that you will find every attempt
abortive to array before yourself a stronger body of evidence in
support of the common doctrine of atonement than I have above presented of the supreme and exclusive Godhead of Jesus Christ, and
as surely as this is received as true, so surely will that doctrine be
renounced as false, for the two cannot possibly stand together. If the
Deity exists in one person he cannot, in that person, as I have already
remarked, make an atonement to himself.
What remains then but to attempt to show, that all the sublime
ends of redemption may be more fully attained, and the Divine perfections be far more gloriously displayed, on the ground which I have
assumed than upon that which is made the basis of the current theology of the church? This is what I have ventured to propose to
myself in the sequel of these letters. Whether I shall do justice to
the theme, or even to my own imperfect views of it, I am not a little
in doubt. But that there is a great truth in relation to the subject,
which is intrinsically capable of presentation, I am altogether satisfied, nor ought I perhaps to despair of exhibiting it in an intelligible
form, if' I have succeeded thus far in stating the preliminary argument out of which the ultimate results legitimately grow.
The aim of my preceding elucidations has been to evince that our
adorable Lord and Saviour, being Jehovah in unity, exists, in his very
nature, in a Divine Humanity, the manifestation of which, prior to
the advent in the flesh, could only be rendered possible by the assumption of an angel as a medium. The angel thus employed was
not necessarily any particular angel with whom  the Divine Being
was more permanently connected than with any other individual of
the angelic order. The Divine influx merely infilled the created angel, who thus became, as it were, a body to that measure of the
essence of Jehovah' which for the time pervaded it as a soul, and
appeared and spake through it. The ontological grounds of this I
have already developed, and a secondary reason for renewing the
mention of it here, is, to introduce a remarkable passage from Watts'
"Glory of Christ as God-Man," which-with the abatement of his
idea respecting the angel as the pre-existing human soul of Jesus,
and therefore permanently united with the Supreme Divinity, and
also with the understanding that by the term angel is meant a real




The Incarnation.                   63
created angel temporarily assumed-exhibits a most striking approximation to the truth as it regards the real relation subsisting between
the visible angel and the informing Deity. He is replying to an objection which he thus states;-" Though it should be allowed that
God was present with this angel, and resided in,him, and spake
by him, yet is this sufficient to make a personal union between
God and the angel? or is it ground enough to say that God and
the angel twere one complex person?" This objection he proceeds to
answer.
" The most common and the most familiar idea that we have of a
complex person is human nature or man, who is made up of a soul
and body. Let us now consider whether most of those mutual relations or communications between soul and body which render man a
complex person are not found in this glorious person composed of the
great God and this angel. Has the body of a man a nearer relation
to his soul than any other body in the world? So had this angel a
nearer relation to God than any other creature whatsoever. Is the
soul said to inhabit the body, or reside in it constantly during the
whole term of life? So did God constantly reside in this glorious
angel. Does the soul influence the body to its chief human actions?
So did God influence this angel. Is the body the constant and immediate instrument of the soul, whereby it speaks and acts and conveys
its mind to men? Such was this angel to'the Great God who dwelt
in him. Is the body obedient to the volitions of the indwelling soul?
Much more is this angel to the indwelling God. Is the soul immediately conscious of many of the motions of the body?  Much more
is God immediately conscious of every motion, action and occurrence
that relates to this angel?  Are the properties and actions of the
body sometimes attributed to the soul, and the properties and actions
of tihe soul sometimes to the body in the common language of men?
So in the language of Scripture the names, title, and properties of
the great God are attributed to this angel; the appearances,
speeches, voice, words, motions, and actions of this angel are attributed to God. And if man upon these accounts be called a complex
person, made up of soul and body, for the same reason we may suppose that the Great God and this angel of his presence make up a
complex person also; and this is called a personal union."-WTatts on
Glory of Christ, p. 67, 68.
This, as I have remarked, is a wonderful approximation to the truth
according to the New Church view of the subject, and the man of
that church can hardly refrain from imagining to himself the cordial
delight with which such a spirit would have welcomed revelations so
well calculated to clear up the mysteries of the Divine nature with
which his mind was evidently deeply oppressed. All that is necessary
fto bring this view into a very strict accordance with the truth, is to
consider the angel as an angel, and to divest the relation set forth of
the permanency which he attributes to it.
It was Jehovah, then, in his Divine Humanity, who appeared in
the ancient theophanies, and these appearances were pre-intimations
of his subsequent coming in the ultimates of our earthly humanity.




64           Letters to a Trinitarian. —Letter VII.
The temporary intermediation of an angel, who was of course a man,
gave a kind of sensible demonstration of the fact, but the procedure
was all along in " first principles," and it was reserved for the "fulness of times," to realise the actual result of the Lord's advent in
the flesh.  In the consideration of this stupendous event, our attention is naturally drawn to two distinct branches of the subject; (1)
The mode of its accomplishment; (2) The ends to be answered by it;
on both which I shallbe constrained to be somewhat full. I shall
count also upon your indulgence for the rather copious extracts from
Swedenborg.
In entering upon an attempted explanation of the mode of the incarnation, I' would fain shield myself from the charge of rudely invading the region of mystery. The apostolic declaration, " Great is
the mystery of godliness; God manifest in flesh," will naturally rise
up to your mind, and perhaps throw around it a sphere of repellency
towards the least approach to a solution of the deep arcana which environ the subject. But I may plead as a sanction to the attempt the
fact, which you cordially admit, that such an incarnation has actually
taken place. I am not arguing the antecedent possibility or probability of such an amazing occurrence. It has already passed into
the category of things transpired. It stands emblazoned as the paramount fact of all human, if not of all Divine, history. Its occurrence is the glory of earth, and the wonder of heaven. The only
question in regard to it, is, whether there be any presumption —any
unlawful prying into things hidden from mortal ken —in humbly
endeavoring to bring our knowledge, such as it is, of the Divine nature, to bear on the nature of the great fact, with the view to learn
how far the mode of it may be brought within the compass of our
intelligence. I do not see that this is by any means forbidden, especially as after all our researches there will remain an immense residuum of absolute verity which will be for ever incomprehensible to
our finite faculties. Yet we come, I think, to the inquiry wvith signal
advantages if what we have already remarked as to the constitution
of the Divine nature be conceded to be true. The cardinal tenet of
the New Church, that Jesus is Jehovah, that Jehovah is one, and that
a Divine Humanity is involved in the very essence of his being, prepares us to yield a more facile credence to the asserted fact of this
eternal Humanity's having become incarnate in time, or, in other
words, of its having "passed from first principles to last." Our conceptions of the subject are, moreover, somewhat aided by the views
above advanced respecting the emanation-thebry of creation, according to which we learn that the Divine influx in its descent continually tends to clothe itself in material embodiments, giving form and
expression to the spiritual principle from which they are derived.
Still, a measureless remove must for ever separate all other manifestations of the Divine agency from that which we are called to
contemplate in the incarnation of Jehovah; and we only refer to
them as casting some collateral gleams of light upon a subject inevitably obscure to us, under whatever aspect it be viewed.
For myself; I am unable to perceive what advance can be made




The Incarnation.                             65
towards a correct apprehension of the theme before us, except by
divesting ourselves entirely, at the outset, of the prevalent idea of a
Trinity of persons. This idea is an effectual closure of the mind
against all access to the light of truth.  The inference-for, as I have
shown, it is nothing more-that it was the second person of the Godhead who assumed our nature, completely vacates all just and Scriptural conceptions of the wondrous fact.*  If there is any intelligible
sense in the inspired declarations as to what is to be believed on this
subject, it is that Jehovah himself, in the unity of his person, condescended to become incarnate, and in so doing did not more assume
our nature than ultimate his own, for our nature is human, because
his is infinitely so.t But what is the true idea which is to be formed
of Jehovah?  Let our illumined author speak in reply.
" That by God and Jehovah in the Word was understood the Lord, was not
known to the'Jewish church, neither is it known at this day to the Christian
church: that the Christian church has not known this, is because it has distingurished the Divine into three persons,.: whereas the ancient church, which
was after the flood, and especially the most ancient church, which was before the flood, by Jehovah and God understood no other than the Lord, and
inldeed the Lord as to the Divine Human.  They had knowledge also concerning the Divine Itself which is the Lord, and which He calls his Father; but
concerning that Divine Itself which is in the Lord, thev were not able to think.
but concerning the Divine Human, consequently they could not be conjoined
to another Divine, for conj'unction is effected by thought which is of the understanding, and by affection which is of the will, thus by faith and by love; for
when the Divine itself is thought of, the thought falls as into a boundless universe, and so is dissipated, whereby is no conjunction;  but it is otherwise
NWhen the Divine itself is thought of as the Divine Human. They knew also, that
unless they were conjoined with the Divine, they could not be saved: on this
account the Divine Human was what the ancient churches adored, and Jehovah also manifested Himself with them in the Divine Human; and the Divine
Humanwas the Divine itself in heaven, for heaven constitutes one man, which
* "It is believed that God, the Creator of the universe, begat a Son from eternity, and
that this Son descended and assumed the Human, to redeem and save men; but this is
erroneous, and fitlls of itself to the ground, while it is considered that God is one, and that
it is more than fabulous in the eye of reason, that the one God should have begotten a
Son from eternity, and also that God the Father, together with the Son and the Holy
Ghost, each of whom singly is God, should be one God. This fabulous representation is
entirely dissipated, while it is demonstrated from the Word, that Jehovah God himself
descended, and became MAN, and also Redeemer."-T. C. R. 82.
t " The reason that the Lord's internal man, which is Jehovah, is called a man, is,
because no one is a man but Jehovah alone. For' man' signifies, in the genuine sense,
that Esse from which man originates. The very Esse fiom which man originates is Divine, consequently, is celestial and spiritual; without this Divine celestial and spiritual,
there is nothing humlan in man, but only a sort of animal nature, such as the beasts have.
It is from the Esse of Jehovah, or of the Lord, that every man is a man; and it is hence
also that he is called a rman. The celestial which constitutes him a man, is that he should
love the Lord, and love the neighbor: thus he is a man, because lie is an image of the
Lord, and because he has that celestial from the Lord; otherwise he is a wild beast. The
same may further appear from this, that Jehovah, or the Lord, appeared to the patriarchs
of the most ancient church as a man; as he did afterwards to Abraham, and likewise to
tile prophets; wherefore also the Lord deigned, when there was no longer any man upon
earth, or nothing celestial and spiritual remaining with man, to assume the human nature
by being born as another man, and to make it Divine; whereby also he is the only man.
Moreover, the universal heaven presents before the Lord the image of a man, because it
presents Hili; hence heaven is called the Grand Man, on this account especially, because
the Lord is all in all therein."-A. C. 1894.




66              Letters to a Trinitaridn.-Letter VII.
is called the Grand Man, and which has been treated of heretofore at the close
of the chapters. This Divine in heaven is no other than the Divine itself, but
in heaven as a divine man; it is this man which the Lord took upon Him, and
made Divine in Himself, and united to the Divine itself, as it had been united
from eternity, for from eternity there was oneness; and this because the human
race could not otherwise be saved; for it could no longer suffice that the Divine itself through heaven, thus through the Divine Human there, could flow
into human minds;  wherefore the Divine itself willed to unite to itself the Divine Human actually by the human assumed in the world; the latter and the
former is the Lord." -A. C. 5663.
If this be well founded, the Divine nature does not present to our
conceptions an absolute simple, but a complex, the elements of which
are the Divine itself in its own super-celestial esse, or the infinite
Love, and the Divine Wisdom or Truth, related to the former as Intellect ever is to Affection, which is the relation of the existere to the
esse.  The Divine Wisdom is the form of the Divine Love, and this
form is what is more especially to be understood by the Divine Humanity existing in "first principles," or as the Alpha, which, in the
incarnation, assumed to itself the Omega; for when our Lord says of
himself, " I am  the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last," it
is obvious that he has no respect to time, as he is without beginning
of days or end of years. In this character of the Divine Humanity
from  everlasting, our Lord was the Word, or the Truth. as I have
already shown, and this "Word was made flesh," i. e., became incarnate." The Word or Wisdom of Jehovah, indicated by the Son,
could be made manifest, but not the Divine Love, answering to the
Father.  "That Jehovah's appearing denotes the Lord's Divine in
his Human, is evident from  this, that his Divine cannot appear to
any man, nor even to, any angel, except by the Divine Human; and
the Divine Human is nothing but the Divine Truth which proceeds
from Himself."  This proceeding of the Divine Truth from the Divine
Good or Love, is what is otherwise expressed by the word sent, and
the idea of sent is intimately related to angel, which, as we have
seen, denotes the medium of manifestation prior to the advent in the
flesh. The bearing of this will appear more clearly in the sequel,
when we shall show that the Father's sending the Son into the world
implies, in a consistent sense, the sending himself into the world.  But
preliminary to this it is necessary to lay down the great law of generation which is perpetually involved in all Swedenborg's expositions
of this profound subject.
* "Who does not know that the Lord was conceived from God the Father, and who
cannot thence understand, that God the Father who is Jehovah, took upon him Huinanity
in the world, and consequently that the Humanity is the Humanity of God the Father,
and thus that God the Father and He are one, as the soul and the body are one? Can
any one therefore approach the soul of a man, and descend from thence into the body?
Is not his humanity to be approached 1 And is not his soul addressed hereby at the same
time? I am aware it will be thought, HEow can Jehovah the Father, who is the Creator
of the universe, come down and assume Humanity. But let these think also, How call
the Son fiomn eternity, who is equal to the Father, and also the Creator of the universe, do
this? Does it not amount to the same thing? It is said the Father and the Son from eternity,
but there is no Son from eternity; it is the Divine Humanity called the Son, that was sent
into the world."-A. R. 743.




The Incarnation.                          67
"' To the above I shall add this arcanum, that the soul, which is from the
father, is the very man, and that the body, which is frorn the mother, is not
man in itself, but from the soul; the body is only a covering of the soul, composed of such things as are of the natural world.-Sinoe the soul of man is the
very man, and is spiritual from its origin, it is manifest whence it is that the
mind,'soul, disposition, inclination, and affection of the love of the father
dwells in his offspring, and retlirns and renders itself conspicuous from generation to generatiofi. Thence it is, that many families, yea, nations, are known
from their first father; there is a general image in the face of each descendant,
which manifests itself; and this image is not changed, except by the spiritual
things of the church. The reason that a general image of Jacob and Judah
still remains in their posterity, by which they may be distinguished from others,
is, because they have hitherto adhered firmly to their religious principles; for
there is in the seed of every one from which he is conceived, a. graft or offset
of the father's soul, in its fulness, within a certain covering from the elements
of nature, by which. the body is formed in the womb of the mother; which
may be made according to the likeness of the father, or according to the likeness. of the mother, the image of the father still remaining within it, which
continually endeavors to bring itself forth, and if it cannot do it in the first
generatidn, it effects it the following. The reason that the image of the father
is in its fulness in the sedd is, because, as was said, the soul is spiritual from
its origin, and what is spiritual has nothing in common with space 3 wherefore it is similar to itself in a small, as well as in a large compass."-T. C. R.
103.
I have here given this law in full by reason of its vast importance
in the present investigation, and though the principle involved comes
fairly within the province of physiology, and may be said to demand
proof, yet I scruple not to build upon it, not only because Swedenborg
asserts it, after having given me reasons to warrant the most implicit reliance on his testimony, but because the presumptions in its
favor' amount very nearly, in my judgment, to positive proof. It cannot, I think, be doubted that there is, on the part of the father, a
descent of the soul in its "first principles" to the ultimates of the
body in the propagation of a human being, and that the office of the
mother is to furnish the investment of the seminal principle or germ.
Accordingly Swedenborg remarks, in illustration of the asserted fact,'that the soul is from  the father, and its clothing from the mother,
may be illustrated by things analogous in the vegetable kingdom.
In this kingdom the earth or ground is the common mother, which, in
itself, as in a womb, receives and clothes seeds; yea, as it were, conceives, bears, brings forth, and educates them as a mother her offspring from  the father."-C. L. 206.  The position is at any rate
boldly assumed by Swedenborg in the face of all physiological science,
and may be considered as a virtual challenge to the schools to dispute its soundness. As the truth of the principle is so essential to a
just view of the whole doctrine of the incarnation as given by him,
we are perfectly sure he would never have hazarded the enunciation
but upon the most indisputable grounds.*
* Notwithstanding the general proclivity of Commentators to deny the reference of
Jer. xxxi. 22; " The Lord hath created (i. e. shall create) a new thing in the earth, a
woman shall coinpass a man," to the miraculous conception. I am for myself satisfied
that no l)lefelralrle explanation has ever been gi ven. This original'~lDn, tesobeb, properly
signifies to surround, environ, encompass, encircle, and Michaelis renders and interprets




68              Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VI.
But how does this law  specifically apply in the case of our Lord?
Here again we are furnished with an answer.
"That Jehovah himself descended and assumed the Human, is very evident
in Luke, where are these words:' Mary said to the angel, How shall this be
done, since I know not a man 3 To whom the angel replied, The Holy Spirit
shall come upon thee, and the virtue of the Most High shall overshadow thee;
whence the Holy Thing that is born of thee, shall be called the Son of God,'
i. 34, 35. And in Matthew:'The angel said to Joseph, the bridegroom of
Mary, in a dream, that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit; and Joseph
knew tier inot, until she brought forth a Son, and called his name Jesus,' i. 20,
25. That by the Holy Spirit is meant the Divine which proceeds from Jehovah, will be seen in the third chapter of this work. Who does not know that
the child has the soul and life firom the father, and that the body is from the
soul 3 What, therefore, is said more plainly than that the Lord had his soul
and life from Jehovah God: and, because the Divine cannot be divided, that
the Divine itself was his soul and life? Wherefore the Lord so often called
Jehovah God his Father; and Jehovah God called Him his Saon.  rhat, then,
can be heard more ludicrous than that the soul of our Lord was from the
mother Mary, as both the Roman Catholics and the Reformed at this day
dreanr, not having as yet been awakened by the Word." —T. C.'R. 82.
Elsewhere he remarks;
" The Lord in the Word is called Jehovah 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 bornr." —A. C. 7499.
This is according to the universal law, that all thought or intellect
is the product of affection. In God, angel, and man, the genesis of
Truth is from Good. But we are called to advance farther in the
direction upon which we have entered. The common doctrine of the
incarnation, if subjected to a rigid analysis, will undoubtedly resolve
itself into the teaching of no higher a fact than this, viz., that the
manhood of Jesus, both soul and body, was, as it were, externally
assumed by God —was appended or adjoined to Deity-so that the
union between the Divine and the human in our Lord, amounted to a
mere adjunction of one nature to the other. This, however, as we
conceive, comes very far short of the truth, for on this ground we are
unable to perceive how the indwelling of Jehovah in Jesus differed,
except in degree, from that which may be predicated of Moses, or
David, or Daniel, or Paul, with each of whom there was doubtless a
very special presence of the Divine Being endowing them for their
work.-*X If Jesus Christ possessed a human soul, or inmost, from his
it-ci7cumdabit, i. e. in utero habebit. So also Pocock, Hulsius, Schmidt, and many
others among the earlier Christian Commentators. This interpretation, like many others,
seems to have been yielded out of a kind of complaisance to the objections of Jews and
other Anti-Messianists of the school of Grotius, who have been followed by the mass of
modern German critics. The import of the passage according to Pocock is, that the Lord
would create a new thing in the unprecedented fact of a woman's encompassing a mana man par eminence-contrary to the ordinary laws of generation. And what is this but
a veiled announcement of the great fact of the miraculous conception 1
* " The unition of the Divine Essence with the Human, is not to be understood as of
two who are distinct from each other, and only conjoined by love as a father with a son,




The Incarnation.                            69
mother, are you prepared to define in what sense he can be affirmed
to have  been essentially Divine?   It will not, I conceive, avail to
have recourse on this point to the convenient plea of mystery, for the
proposition is a very plain one, and must be susceptible of a sense
not difficult to be grasped. so far as the averment of the fact is concerned. We see, in regard to the ancient theophanies, that the assumption of an angel leaves the impression very distinct of the paramount
presence and operation  of Jehovah himself acting  in and through
him.  The Divine person may be said to be translucent through the
angelic humanity. In like manner, in the Lord's incarnation on
earth, it is necessary that the Deity should be equally conspicuous,
at least to the eye of the mind, in the terrestrial man with whom  he
is conjoined, for the natural bddy which he here assumed stands, in
fact, in a very similar relation to the indwelling Divinity, as did the
spiritual body of the mediating angel to the essential Godhead which
temporarily informed it. But let it once be assumed that he received a
human soul-understanding by that term  an inmost essence —by nativity of the mother, and such a distinct Divine inhabitation becomes impossible, and  nothing more  than the  bare  adjunction of
Deity can be recognized. Upon this ground, therefore, our Lord
stands shorn of his essential glory, and his human  principle  will
inevitably be thought of as the human principle of any other man,
while his Divinity, though brought in contact with his humanity, will
be viewed altogether apart from  it, and ideally merged in that of the
infinite Godhead, which is usually understood by the term  Father.
This is a virtual surrender of the great truth in question, and they to
whom it is imputable have small cause to enter the lists with the
Unitarians. Let once the humanity of our Lord be mentally disjoined from his Divinity, and " Ichabod" is written upon the pillars of
the church. On this subject I will give place to higher authority.
" Another point which the Athanasian doctrine teaches, is, that in the Lord
there are two essences, the Divine and the Human; and in that doctrine the
idea is clear that the Lor(d has a Divine principle and a Human, or that the
eord is God and man  but the idea is obscure that the Divine principle of the
Lord is il the Human, as the soul is in the body.  ILnasmuch as a clear idea
prevails over an obscure idea. therefore most people, both simple and learned,
think of the Lord as of a cotumon manl, like nnto themselves. and in such case,
they do not think at the same time of his Divine principle; if they thlinkl of
the Divine principle, then they separate it in their idea f'onL. the Huiman,
and tlhereby also infringe the unity of person.  If they are asked, wuhere
is his Divine principle? they reply, from  their idea, In heaven with the
when the father loves the son, and the son the father, or when a brother loves a brother,
orit friend a fiiend; but it is a real unition into one, so thlat they are not two but onle, as
the Lrud also teaches in several p)laces."-A. C. 3737.
" With respect to the union of the Lord's Divine Essence with his Humlan, and of the
Humnarn with the Divine, this is infinitely transcendant; for the Lord's internal was Jehovahl Himself, thus life itself; whereas mlan's internal is not tile Lord: thus neither life,
but a recilp)ient of life. There was usnior of the Lord with Jehovah, but there is no z6enios
of  lnan wittI Lord, but conrjunction. The Lord froin his own prol)er I)ower unite(l h ilntelf
withi Jehovah, wherefore also the was mnade righteousness; but inan's conjunctioll is nlever
effected by his own power, but by the Lord's, so that the Lord joins man to litrnself'."A. C. 2005.




70            Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VII.
Father; the reason why they so reply and so perceive, is, because they find a
repugnance to think that the Human principle is Divine, and thus together
with its Divine principle in heaven, not aware, that whilst in thought they thus
separate the Divine principle of the Lord from his Human, they.not only think
contrary to their own doctrine, which teaches that the Divine principle of the
Lord is in His Human, as the soul in the body, also, that there is unity ol
person, that is, that they are one person, but also they charge that doctrine
undeservedly with contradiction or fallacy, in supposing that the Human principle of the Lord, together with the rational soul, was from the mother alone,
when yet every man is rational by virtue of the soul, which is from the father.
But that such thought has place, and such a separation, follows also from the
idea of three Gods, from which idea it results, that His Divine principle in the
Human is from the Divine of the Father, who is the first person, when yet it
is His own proper Divine principle, which descended from heaven and assumed
the Human. If man does not rightly perceive this, he may possibly be led to
suppose, that his begetting Father was not one Divine principle but threefold,
which yet cannot be received with any faith. In a word, they who separate
the Divine principle from His Human, and do not think that the Divine is in
His Human as the soul in the body, and that they are one person, may fall
into erroneous ideas concerning the Lord, even into an idea as of a man separated from a soul; wherefore take heed to yourselves lest you think of the
Lord as of a Wan like yourself. but rather think of the Lord as of a man who
is God. Attend, my reader! When you are perusing these pages, you may be
led to suppose, that you have never, in thought, separated the Divine principle of the Lord from His Human, thus neither the Human from the Divine;
but, I beseech you, consult your thought, when you have determined it to the
Lord, whether you have ever considered that the Divine principle of the Lord
is in His Human as the soul in the body? Rather have you not thodght, yea,
if you are now willing to make the inquiry, do not you-at present think of
His Human principle separately, and of His Divine principle separately? And
when you think of His human principle, do not you conceive it to be like the
human principle of another man, and when of His Divine principle, do not
you conceive in it your idea, to be with the Father?  I have questioned great
numbers on this subject, even the rulers of the church, and they have all replied that it is so; and when I have said, that yet it is a tenet taught in the
Athanasian creed, which is the very doctrine of their church concerning God
and concerning the Lord, that the Di vine principle of the Lord is in His Human
as the soul in the body, they have replied, that they did not know this: and
when I have recited these words of the doctrine,' Our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, although He be God and man, yet there are not two but one
Christ; one altogether by unity of person; since as the reasonable soul and
body are one man, so God and man is one Christ;' they were then silent
and confessed afterwards, that thev had not noted these words, being indignant at themselves for having so hastily, and with so careless an eye, examined their own doctriine." A. E. 1104.
To thesame effect, he observes in another place, that "they who
think of the Lord's Humanity and not at the same time of his Divinity, will on no account admit the phrase "Divine Humanity; for
they think separately of his Humanity, and separately of his Divinity,
which is like thinking of a man separately from  his soul or life,
which, however, is not to think of a man at all; still less is it an
adequate way of thinking of the Lord."
We have here, then, if we mistake not, the grand cardinal truth of
all Divine revelation-"God (i. e. Jehovah) manifest in the flesh;"
not God merely adjoined to the soul and body of a human being like
ourselves, but the true God truly incarnated in a tenement of flesh
and blood received, not by ordinary generation, but by ordinary na



The Incarnation.                   71
tivity, from the virgin womb of Mary. "That the Lord had Divinity
and Humanity, Divinity from Jehovah the Father, and Humanity
from the virgin Mary, is well known. Hence it is, that he was God
and Man, and that he had a Divine Essence and a Human nature,
the Divine Essence from the Father, and the Human nature from the
Mother; and hence he was equal to the Father with respect to the
Divinity, and less than the Father with respect to the Humanity.
And further, this Human Nature was not transmuted into the Divine
Essence, neither commixed with it; for the Human Nature cannot be
transmuted into the Divine Essence nor can it be Commixed therewith.
Nevertheless, by our doctrine we maintain that the Divinity assumed
a Humanity, that is, united itself to it, as the soul is united to its
body, so that they are not two, but one person."
This we believe to be the true DOCTRINFe OF THE LORD, or the doctrine respecting the Lord, and of such transcendant importance do
we regard it, that we scruple not to subscribe with all our hearts to
Swedenborg's declaration, that "the essential of all doctrines is to
acknowledge the Divine Human of the Lord."  Nay, we are expressly taught by him that the cordial recognition of this doctrine is
that which really constitutes the Lord's Second Coming. " By the
Lord's advent is not understood His advent in person, but that he
will then reveal Himself in the Word, that He is Jehovah, the Lord
of heaven and earth, and that He alone is to be adored by all who
will be in His new church, which is meant by the New Jerusalem;
for which end also He hath now opened the internal or spiritual sense
of the Word, in which sense the Lord is everywhere treated of: this
also is what is understood by His coming in the clouds of heaven
with glory. Inasmuch as He Himself is the Word, as tie is called in
John, therefore the revelation of Himself in the Word is His advent."
He comes in the revelation of His own essential glory as God-Man,
Jehovah Jesus, Creator, Redeemer and Regenerator —a revelation
made in connexion with the establishment of the Church of the New
Jerusalem, as it is in this Church only that the doctrine in question is
received in its genuine purport. "That there is in the Lord a threefold principle, namely, the Divinity Itself, the Divine Humanity, and
the Divine Proceeding, is an arcanurn from heaven and is revealed
for the benefit of those who shall have a place in the Holy Jerusalem." —H. D. 997. For the inferential bearings of this averment
upon the theological views or the moral state of others, we are not
responsible, as we plant ourselves simply upon the instrinsic truth of
the position, and if any truth has a train of just and inevitable consequences, we cannot reject the truth simply because we cannot dispose of the consequences entirely to our minds. In respect to the
system, however, in which the present doctrine holds so prominent a
place, we do not regard it as a harshly exclusive or denunciatory system, though very emphatic in its affirmations, and I propose, in the
winding up of my discussion, to offer some remarks on the moral
aspects of the subject, which may tend to correct certain unfavorable
impressions on this score, that have probably arisen in the minds of
some of my readers.




72              Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VII.
In the following paragraph, Swedenborg is relating the econversation of certain spirits in the other life. In the perusal I beg you will
make as much or as little account as you please of his assertions, on
the score of the reality of this intercourse with spirits.  The grand
question is rather what the Truth says on this subject, than what
they are alleged to have said, yet, as I have before remarked, the
evidence that they did say it, is undoubtedly enhanced in proportion
to the evidence of its being intrinsically true.-The spirits were from
some other earth in the universe.'"It is well to be observed, that the idea which: any person entertains concerning any thing, in another world is presented to the life, and thereby every
one is examined as to the nature of his thought and perception respecting
the things of faith; and that the idea of the thouglit concerning God is the
chief of all others, inasmuch as by that idea, if it be genuine, conlunction is
effected with the Divine Being, and consequently with heaven. They were
afterwvards questioned concernintg the nature of their idea respecting God.
They replied. that they did not conceive God as invisble, but as visible iunder
a human form; and that they knewx him to be thus visible, not only from an
interior perception, but also from this circumstance, that he has appeared to
them' as a man; they added, that if. according to the idea of some straugers,
they should conceive God as invisible, consequently without form and quality,
they should not be able in any wise to think about God, inasmuch as such an
invisible principle falls not upon any idea of thought. 011 hearing this, it was
given to tell them, that they do well, to think of God under a huiman forli,
and that many on our earth think in like manner, especially when they think
of the Lord; and that the ancients. also thought according to this idea. I
then told them concerning Abraham, Lot, Gideon, Manoab, and his wife, and
what is related of them in our Word, viz., that they saw God under a 1human
form. and acknowledged him thus seen to be the Creator of the Universe, and
called him Jehovah, and this also from an interior perception; but that at this
day that interior perception was lost in the Christian world, and only remains
with the simple who are principled in faith
"Previous to this discourse, they believed that our company also consisted
of those, who were desirous to confuse them in their thoughts of God by an
idea of three; wherefore on hearing what was said, they were affected with
joy, and replied that there were also sent from God (whom they then called
-the Lord) those who teach them concerning Him, and that they are not willing
to admit strangers, who perplex them, especially by the idea of three persons
in the Divinity, inasmuch that they know that God is one, consequently that
the Divine Principle is One, and not consisting of three in unanimity, unless
such threefold unanimity to be conceived to exist in God as in an angel, in
wThom there is an inmost principle of life, which is invisible and which is the
ground of his thought and wisdom, and an external principle of life which is
visible under the human form, whereby he sees and acts, and a proceeding
principle of life which is the sphere of love and of faith issuing from him
(for from every spirit and angel there proceeds a sphere of life, whereby lie is
knovwn at a distance); which proceeding principle of life, when considered as
issuing from  the Lord, is the' essential Divine Principle vhich fills aund constitutes the heavens, because it proceeds from the very Esse of the life of love
and of faith; they said, that in this, and in  no other manner, they can perceive and apprehend a threefold unity. When they had thus expresseci theinmselves, it was given to me to inform them, that such an idea concerning a
threefold unity agrees with the idea of the a)ngels concerning the Lord, anlld
that it is grounded in the LTord's own doctrine respecting himself; for lie
teaches that the Father and hirmself are One; that the Father is in Himn ail
He in the Father; that whoso seeth -Him seeth the Father; and twhloso believeth on him believeth on the Father and knoweth the Father; also that the




The Incarnation.                           73
Comforter, whom  he calls the Spirit of Truth, and likewise the THoly Ghost,
proceeds from Him, and doth not speak from himself but for Him, by which
Comforter is meant the Divine Proceeding Principle.  It was given me further to tell them, that their idea concerning a threefold unity agrees Jwith tlhe
Esse and Existere of the life of the Lord when in the world: the I-sse of his
life was the Essential Divine Principle, for he was conceived of Jehovah. and
the Esse of every one's life is that whereof lhe is conceived; the Existere of
life derived from  that Esse is the Human Principle in form; the Esse of life
of every man, wvhich he has from his father, is called soul, and the Existere of
life thence derived is called body; soul and body constitutes one man; the
likeness betwveen each resembles that which subsists between a principle
vwthich. is in effort [conatus], and a principle which is in act derived fiom effort
for act is an effort acting, and thus two are one: effort in man is called will
and effort acting is called action: the body is the instrumental part, whereby
the will, which is the principal, acts, and the instrumental and p'incipal in
acting are one; such is the case in regard to soul and body, and such is the
idea which the angels in heaven have respecting soul and body  hence they
knowv, that the Lord made his'human principle divine by virtue of the divine
principle in himnself, which was to him a soul from the Fathier. This is agreeable also to the creed received throughout the Christian world, which teaches,
that'.4ltlougl', Christ is God and,man, yet he is not two but one Christ; 1gea. lie is
altoget/her oine and a single Person; for as body a'nd soul are one man, so also God and
man is one Christ.' "  E. U. 158.
But the question which you will urge as paramount to all others
is, whether the view  now  presented finds adequate warrant in the
Scriptures fairly  and  legitimately  interpreted.  This question. of
which I fully acknowledge the claims, I shall consider at length in
my next.
Yours, &c.
LETTER VIII.
THE  INCARNATION.
DEAR SIR,
ir would not perhaps be possible to  announce  any proposition
fraught with more momentous consequences to the interests of revealed truth, than that which I have thus far endeavored to establish,
viz., that Jesus Christ is the  true and  only God, the Creator and
Governor of the Uniiverse,  one with Jehovah, and comprising within
his own Divine Person the three Essentials of the Godhead, denorninated Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  How  rich the discovery to the
Christian, that that Being, whom  he had been taught to view simply
as his Saviour, in some secondary character, is indeed no other than
the Supreme Deity in the most absolute oneness of his nature, and
not merely a proper, but the only proper, obect of religious worship
and adoration!  With this view of our Lord's character firmly rooted
and grounded in his mind, he knows no Father or Holy Ghost in the
least degree separate from the person of Christ, and offers no prayer




74               Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VIII.
to any other being.  The sum  total of all that he knows or acknowledges of God, is concentrated in Jesus of Nazareth alone.  This is
"the true-God and our Saviour, whom  to know aright is eternal life."
Such an assurance is as the blaze of a fresh revelation pouring its
beams upon the dazzled eye-sight, and the soul awakes to the experience of a new-born joy in contemplating the Eternal Deity as
dwelling in him who dwelt in human flesh and who accomplished his
earthly sojourn in the land of Judea.  The "root out of dry ground,"
becomes the " plant of renown," and he who was "without form and
comeliness," becomes  "fairer than the  sons of men," his ineffable
human beauties fading away into the inconceivable splendors of the
Godhead. Discarded for ever from his mind is that chaos of confusion which had hitherto beset him in his attempts to put an intelligible sense upon the language of the creeds Which represent God as
subsisting in three persons, and Christ virtually in two.+ The daydawn of truth has at length risen upon the obscurities and mystifications of his faith, and he has ceased to be perplexed by the subtleties
of the Trinitarian or the bald negations of the Unitarian dogma. He
beholds the clear development of the Unity and Trinity of the Divine
Nature, harmonizing  all the discords of the established symbols of
Christendom, and leaving intact the literal and spiritual integrity of
the inspired Word. The perception of this glorious truth cannot fail
to constitute an era in the experience of every soul that is visited by
it, and from its inmost depths it must echo forth the response of the
believing Thomas, " My LORD and my God!"
The testimony in proof of this grand position I have adduced in
* "The reason why the Lord is not acknowledged when his Divine principle is not
acknowledged in His Human is, because in such case He is not regarded as God, but only
as a man, who is not able to save: but wvhereas it is still believed from the Athanasian
creed, that the Lord is the Son of God born from eternity, and His Divinity equal to the
Divinity of the Father, and yet they separate His Human principle from His Divine, it
follows, that they distinguish the Lord as it were into two persons, which they call natnres, so that the Lord is one as the Son of God from eternity, and another as the Son of
Vary; and whereas they thus distinguish the Lord, no one can approach Him, except he
will approach him as one person, when he approaches him as God, and as another person, when he approaches Him as man. Such an idea concerning the Lord has been entertained from the first foundation of the church, as may appear from the writings of the
fathers, and afterwards from those of their descendants. This division of ttie Lord in the
church from its beginning, arose from the Word not being understood; for where the Father is mentioned by the Lord, it was believed to be the Divine principle distinct from His
Human, when, nevertheless, it manifestly appears in Matthew and in Luke, that the Lord
was conceived of the Essential Divine principle which is called the Father, and consequently that that Essential Divine principle is in His Human as the soul is in its body,
and the soul and body are one person: and what is wonderful, the Athanasian creed,
which is universally received in the Christian world, teaches this in express terms, and
yet scarce any one attends to it therein; that they do not attend to it has been made evident to me from this circumstance, that many with whom I have conversed after death,
both learned and unlearned, have said that they did not know it, but that they thought of
the Son of God from eternity as of a divine person above His Human, sitting at the right
hand of God the Father: likewise also that they had not attended to the words of the Lord
which declared that the Father and He are One, likewise that the Father is in Him and He
in the Father. From these considerations it may appear that the church has not acknowledged the Divine principle of the Lord in His Human, from its beginning; and that this
is what is signified by the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world." —A. E.
807.




The Incarnation.                   75
copious measure in tne preceding Letters. But I must have a very
inadequate idea of the tenacity with which fixed opinions are held,
were I to suppose that all objections would yield at once even to any
amount of evidence that might be adduced upon the subject. So inveterate is the grasp laid upon our faith by the sermon, the catechism, and the hymn-book, which have always embodied our theology-*-so reluctantly is wrung from us the concession that the church
of the past has failed to seize the most fundamental of all truths, and
that such long lines of holy synods, erudite fathers, "angelical
doctors," godly divines, learned laymen, the piously simple, and
" devout women and children not a few," have disappeared from the
earth with their spiritual vision filmed by an error so gross-that we
must be under an equal delusion to imagine that such a result will
be acquiesced in without an internal renitency of the most vigorous
kind. It is a strong man armed who keeps the house that is invaded
by the doctrines of the New Church. There is much more than the
pride of opinion at stake. There are multitudinous interests involved, around which every form of partisan weaponry will rally and
bristle to ward off the menacing peril. The breaking down of' sects,
the making bonfires of.libraries, the acknowledgment of the heavenly
mission of Swedenborg, are not among the pleasing objects of contemplation, and truth finds but a heartless welcome when its entrance turns so many occupants out of doors. But apart from this,
I do not doubt that there are those who will be deterred from a ready
assent to my previous conclusions, from a lingering but honest fear
that they grow rather out of a certain vein of theosophic speculation
than from the fair and unforced interpretation of the sacred text.
Upon this head I am conscious of deep anxiety, for as the Divine
Word is all in all with the man of the New Church, as it is with
Swedenborg himself, we cannot give ear for a moment to any doctrinal proposition which will not stand the test of the Word legitimnately expounded. In pursuance, therefore, of the intimation in my
last, I resume the thread of my discussion at the point where it connects itself more especially with the Scriptural testimony.
That a veritable Trinity, under the threefold designation of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, is to be recognized in the Divine nature, is a
point, on which you and I can of course have no debate. The only
question between us is, whether this Trinity is a Trinity of persons
in any proper use of language. For myself, I have no idea of distinct
persons which does not involve that of distinct consciousness, nor
can I conceive that three distinct Divine consciousnesses should not
constitute three distinct Divine Beings, however conjoined by unanimity of counsel; in other words, that they should not constitute
three Gods. There is something, in fact, so palpable in this-it
presses down with so much weight upon the general consensus of the
human mind-that it is no wonder that the word persons has occasioned such trouble to theologians, that, like Prof. Stuart and others,
they should have been anxious to get rid of it. But as this could not
be decently effected, nothing has remained but to refine upon it, till
it has become evacuated of its genuine import, while the ruling idea




70             Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VIII.
still underlies the doctrine, and works out its legitimate measure of
mischief- in the conceptions of Christendom. The consequence is,
that while in controversy the Trinitarian will not allow himself to
be bound to the vindication of the term, in practical operation, the
tenet itself' still retains its efficiency and closes the mind against the
access of all higher views. My object thus far has been to propound
a higher view, and I see not why it should fail to command assent,
provided it can be shown to be in accordance with the fairest construction of the oracles of truth.  Let us then bring it to the test.
The doctrine is that the Father became incarnate in the person of
the Son. But the Father is the Divine esse or Love inseparably united
with the Divine existere or Truth.  Now  although all truth is a proceeding or evolution from love, yet the generating love is necessarily
in the truth as its life and soul; consequently the Divine Love or the
Father must have been in the Divine Truth or the Son, however it
were that the Son was the object visibly manifested to the eyes of
men.  Accordingly Swedenborg says that although Jehovah, the
Creator of the universe, descended as the Divine Truth and assumed
the Human, in order to our redemption, yet that in so doing he did
not separate the Divine Good or Love.  "That God, altho'ugh he descended as the Divine Truth, still did not separate the Divine Good,
is evident from the conception, concerning which it is read, that'The
virtue of' the Most High overshadowed Mary;' and by the virtue of
the Most High is meant the Divine Good..The same is evident from
the passages where he says that the Father is in Him, and He is in
the Father; that all things of the Father are His; and that the Father
and He are one; besides many others: by the Father is meant the
Divine Good."  Now  I feel wholly at liberty  to put the question,
whether, if what I have previously affirmed of the constitution of the
Divine nature be in itself true, it does not necessarily follow that
this statement is also true, or, in other words, that the Father was
essentially though invisibly present in the Son, as the esse is always
present in the existere?  And was he not thus most veritably one
with Him as the true Jehovah incarnate?* Let this be a little farther
explained by our author.
"There are two things which make the essence of God, the Divine Love
and the Divine Wisdom; or, what is the same, the Divine Good and the Divine Truth. These two inl the Word are meant also by Jehovah God: by Jehovah. the Divine Love or the Divine Good, and by God, tihe Divine Wisdom
or the Divine Truth  thence it is, that, in the Word, they are distinguished in
various ways, and sometimes only Jehovah is named, and sometimes only God;
for where it is treated of the Divine Good, there it is said Jehovah  atnd where
of the Divine Truth, there God; and where of both, there Jehovah God. That
Jehovah God descended as the Divine Truth, which is the Word, is evident in
" All who belong to the Christian Church, and are under the influence of light from
lheaven, see and discern the Divine Nature in the Lord Jesus Christ; but such as are not
undter the inHtlence of the light from heaven, see and discern in hirn only the Human
Nattiwe; when, nevertheless, the Divinity and the Humanity are so united in hilm as to
mwne one person; for so lihe declares himself,' Father, all maine are thine, and thine are
milnl...' "-D. N. J. 285.




The Incarnation.                    77
John, where are these words:'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Himn, and
without Him was nothing made that was made. And the Word became. flesh,
and dwelt amongst us' (i. 1, 3, 14)." —T. C. R. 85.
We will now take a class of passages represented by the following, —" I. came forth from the Father and came into the world." " I
proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he
sent me;" "The Father loveth you, because ye have believed that I
came out from God." How is this language to be fairly understood?
It must surely have a meaning consistent with what we know to be
the nature of God. If.we fix our thoughts upon the simple material
humanity of our Lord, he cameforth from the womb of the virgin by
a nativity similar to that of other men. Does this exhaust the meaning of the text? If understood solely in this sense, how did he proceed and come forth from the Father otherwise than do all other
men? May we not all say in the words of Job, " Did not he that
made me in the womb, make him?' And did not one fashion us in
the womb?" Is it not clear that something higher than mere natural
nativity is here intended? What is it? "Who shall declare his
generation?"' Do you say that as he had no human father, it is an
allusion to the miraculous conception? Even granting this, still the
question is not answered.  What was it that came forth from the
Father? The body indeed was generated from the maternal substance, but the soul which animated the body was not from her, as
the soul is evermore from the father. The soul, or inmost principle
of our Lord, was from Jehovah himself, and therefore essentially divine. But as the divine essence is not divisible, it is impossible, I
think, to conceive that Divinity could proceed from Divinity, except
as Truth proceeds from Good, or the existere from the esse. Is any
other kind of proceeding consistent with a just view of the intrinsic
nature, of Deity? Can we hesitate to assent to the truth of Swedenborg's remark, that "from the Divine Good, which is the Father,
nothing can proceed or come forth, but what is Divine, and this which
proceeds or comes forth, is the Divine Truth, which is the Son." As
to any kind of idea of the proceeding by the Son, or sending by the
Father, which implies a local sojourn, as when in this world an ambassador is sent abroad to a foreign court, you will at once unite
with me in rejecting it altogether as wholly inconsistent with the
nature of the subject. As God is a Spirit, and as whatever is predicated of Him must consist with spiritual attributes, so the proceed.
ing forth of the Son from the Father must indicate something con.
gruous to the properties of such a Being. I submit it then to your
decision, what else can be gathered from this language than that our
Lord, as the Divine Truth, proceeded from the Father as the Divine
Good; consequently, as these principles cannot subsist apart from
each other, that there is a consistent sense in which, as Swedenborg
says, the Lord, by means of the assumed Human, sent himself into
the world. If it was Jehovah who became incarnate, and if in Jehovah is the eternal Father, how can this inference be avoided?
Nor in fact is the direct Scriptural testimony very remote from this.




78           Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VIII.
Zech. ii. 10, 11, "Sing and rejoice, 0 daughter of Zion; for lo, I come,
and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith,the Lord (Jehovah); and
many nations shall be joined to the Lord (Jehovah) in that day, and
shall be my people; and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou
shalt know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me unto thee." Here it is
clear that Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, is both sender and sent. The
same is evident from a previous portion of the same chapter, v. 8, 9,
"For thus saith the Lord of hosts: After the glory hath he sent me
unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of his eye.'For behold, I will shake my hand upon
them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know
that the Lord of hosts' hath sent me." The Lord of hosts is here
evidently the speaker, and yet he is at the same time represented as
being sent by the Lord of hosts.
Thus, too, when Jehovah says to Moses, "Behold, I send an angel
before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place
which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke
him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is
in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I
speak; then I will be an. enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. For mine Angel shall go before thee, and
bring thee unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites,
and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and I will
cut them off;" we are not to conceive of the angel as any divine
person separate from Jehovah, but merely as a medium through
which Jehovah's presence was manifested, as 1 have already had occasion to explain it. His sending an angel was, therefore, sending
Himself, for that it was the supreme Jehovah, in His own person,
who conducted the chosen people from Egypt, is again and again
affirmed in the sacred record. Whatever, then, be the idea attached
to the term sending in this connexion, it must be such as to consist
entirely with the established unity and unipersonality of the Divine
nature; and if this language may be properly employed in reference
to the manifestation of Jehovah through an angelic medium, with the
same propriety may it be employed in reference to his manifestation
through the medium of the assumed Humanity. It must inevitably
be a sending of himself in either case. So, on a smaller scale, when
a man writes and publishes a book, he may be said to send his
thoughts into the world; but he really sends himself, because his
affection and thought, which are in his book, are in fact himself.
Again, the' language of our Lord in Luke, xi. 13, is so peculiar,
that without assuming it as an indubitable proof of the doctrine I am
now advocating, I still feel at liberty to refer to it as worthy of
special notice in the present connexion; "If ye then being evil know
how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your
Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" The
original exhibits the reading, r6ao pdAXXov  Iharhp b; oepavoo, how much more
shall the Father that (is) from heaven give, 4c. This form of appellation in reference to the Father occurs nowhere else in the New
Testament. There the usual phraseology is,  vovpavot,, in heaven, in



The Incarnation.                        79
ste'd of t o'pavoo, from heaven.  Why is not the inference fair that
this expression really conveys an allusion to the assumed Humanity
in the person of the Saviour, who with the utmost propriety might
be called the Father (the Divine Good) from heaven, and from whom
also proceeds the Holy Spirit (or Divine Truth) here adverted to?
The intimation need not be any less valid for being somewhat veiled.
I am aware that the commentators are here also ready with their
glosses and evasions by which to render pointless every form  of
speech that enforces the recognition of a new aspect of truth. They
remark  that hio3pavoC, from  heaven, is here  equivalent, to oipaVLdgs
heavenly, "as often elsewhere." But this "elsewhere" I have not
been able to find; on the contrary, I am persuaded that not a single
instance, apart from  the present, can be adduced from Mattriew to
the Revelation, where the phrase 4oupavoe, does not fairly imply
some kind of descent or proceeding from  heaven, as truly so as iu
Paul's expressions-"The second man is the Lord from heaven
(KvJp,9s Ei oipavoi)," which is undoubtedly tantamount to Jehovah from
heaven, and this is in effect the same with the Father from heaven in
the passage before us, for who is the Father from heaven, i. e. who
descended from heaven, but Jehovah God incarnated and manifested
in the person of the Son?  And what other inference is forced upon
us than that of the real and essential identity of the Father and the
Son all the while underlying the apparent divarication and duality
of the two? If it be intrinsically true that the Father descended in
the person of the Son, why should it be deemed incredible that the
fact is alluded to in the passage before us?
The dominant idea conveyed under the term proceeding, in its reference to our Lord, is so clearly set forth and illustrated in the following paragraph that I do not hesitate to insert it.
" That to go forth is to be of it, or its own, is evident from what goes before
and from what follows, and also from the spiritual sense of that expression,
for to go forth or to proceed in that sense, is to present oneself before another
in a form accommodated to him, thus to present oneself the same only in another form; in this sense, going forth is said of the Lord in John;' Jesus said
of himself, I proceeded forth and came from God,' viii. 42.' The Father loveth
you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I cameforth from God:
I came forth from the Father, and came into the world; again, I leave the
world, and go to the Father. The disciples said, we believe that thou camest
forth from Godl,' xvi. 27, 28, 30.'They have known truly that I came forth
from God,' xxvii. 8. For illustrating what is meant by going forth or proceeding, the following cases may serve. It is said of truth, that it goes forth or
proceeds from good, when truth is the form of good, or when truth is good in
a form which the understanding can apprehend. It may also be said of the understanding, that it goes forth or proceeds from the will, when the understanding is the will formed, or when it is the will in a form apperceivable to the
iinternal sight. In like manner concerning the thought which is of the understanding, it may be said to go forth or proceed when it becomes speech, and
concerning the wvill when it becomes action. Thought clothes itself in another
form when it becomes speech, but still it is the thought which so goes forth
or proceeds, for the words and sounds, \Which are put on, are nothing but
adjuncts, which make the thought to be accommodately apperceived: in like
manner the will becomes another form when it becomes action, but still it is
the will which is presented in such a form; the gestures and motions, which




80               Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VIII.
are put on, are nothing but adjuncts, which make the will to appear and affect
accommodately. It may also be said of the external man, that it goes forth
or proceeds from the internal, yea substantially, because thile external man is
nothing else than the internal so formed, that it may act suitably in the world
wherein it is. From these things it may be manifest, what going forth or proceeding is in the s piritual sense, namely, that when it is predicated of the Lord,
it is the Divine formed as a man, thus accommodated to the perception of the
believing; nevertheless each is one." —A. C. 5337
In like manner oWe infer, by parity of reasoning, that our Lord's
going to the Father was in fact no local removing of himself from
our globe to some distant part of the universe, called heaven, but a
simple recession, or returning, into his own essential divinity, notwithstanding that it was in appearance an ascension in the clouds of
heaven.
I could fain hope that the Scriptural testimony now adduced has
5lot been suborned to the purpose of establishing a fallacious tenet of
theology. As nothing can be clearer than the doctrine of the Divine
Unity, and yet nothing in your view and mine more explicit than
that of our Lord's divinity, I have attempted so to present the subject,
as to make the Scriptures consistent with themselves.*  This must
be done upon some ground, or the argument yielded to the Unitarians.  The mere establishment of a Trinity will go but little way
towards it; for if the alleged Trinity be such as to subvert the Unity,
it can never stand the ordeal to which, in this age, every doctrine of
the Bible will be and ought to be subjected. That such is indeed the
effect of the current doctrine of a  Trinity of persons is, I think,
beyond doubt.  The mind left to the freedom of reason rejects it as a
gross paralogism. The Scriptural Trinity must of necessity be such
that the predicates of what are termed the different persons must be
seen to be strictly applicable to one person, and to one only.  The
recognition of two or more persons discloses a state of mind in which
the appearances of truth have gained an ascendancy over the reality of
truth, no unusual result from making the simple letter of the Word
the ultimate appeal, and building the strongest confirmations upon
it. "In the sense of' the letter," says Swedenborg, "it appears as if
another who is superior is meant by Jehovah, but such is the sense
of the letter, that it distinguishes what the internal sense unites.
There are several (things or principles) in the Lord, and all are
Jehovah; thence it is that the sense of the letter distinguishes, whereas
heaven never distinguishes, but acknowledges one God with a simple
idea, nor any other than the Lord." Nothing therefore adverse to
our view can be inferred from  the use of terms so distinctive as the
personal pronouns I and Thou, for as the indubitable doctrine of the
Divine Unity absolutely precludes any such real distinction of person,
* On the ground of the common doctrine I believe it is impossible to assign any adequate reason why Joseph might not have been our Lord's father as welt as Mary his mother. If he possessed a human soul from a human parent, why might not that soul have
been propagated according to the ordinary law of generation? That doctrine makes his
Divinity to be derived solely from the adjunction of the Divine nature to the Human, and
how could this result have been affected by his having a human father!




'The Incarnation.                      81
so I trust it xvill appear from the following extract, that the solution
set forth makes ample provision for the use of such language without at all weakening the ground of the main position.
"Inasmuch as all and single things in heaven, and all and single things
with man, yea, in universal nature, have relation to good and truth, therefore
also the Lord's Divine is distinguished into Divine Good and Divine Truth,
and the Divine Good of the Lord is called Father, and the Divine Truth, Son;
but the Lord's Divine is nothing else but good, yea, Good Itself, and the Divine
Trtuth 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. This is the arcanum which lies hid in the circumstance, that the
Lord so often speaks of His Father as if distinct, and as it were another from
Himself, and yet in other places asserts that He is one with Himself. This being so, and it being so evident from the Word. it is surprising that they do not,
in the Christian world, as in heaven, acknowledge: and adore the Lord alone,
and thus one God; for they know and teach,' that the whole Trine is in the
Lord. That the Holy Spirit who also is worshiped as a God distinct from the
Son and the Father, is the holy of the Spirit,'or the holy principle wvhichl by
spirits or angels proceeds from the Lord, that is, from His Divine Good by
Divine Truth, will be shown elsewhere by the Lord's Divine mercy."-A. C.
3704.
The last sentence of the above reminds me that in order to render
the argument complete it is necessary to exhibit the evidence that
the Holy Spirit is no more to be considered a Divine person than the
Son, while yet the term as truly denotes an Essential of the Divine
nature as either that of Father or Son.  In this as in every other
part of the discussion I shall avail myself of the light shed upon the
subject by Swedenborg.  And, first, I remark that the Holy Spirit is
the Divine Truth proceeding from our Lord's Divine Human subsequent to his glorification, and that it is in'effect the Lord himself.
The general position is thus stated.
1" That the Divine Truth is the Lord Himself, is evident from the consideration, that whatsoever proceeds from any one is himself, as, what proceeds
from man, while he speaks or acts, is from his will-principle and intellectual;
and the will-principle and intellectual constitutes the life of man, thus the
man himself; for man is not a man from the form of the face and body, but
from the understanding of truth, and the will of good. Hence it'may be manifest that what proceeds fiom the Lord is the Lord." —A. C. 9407.
There is no principle of more importance than this, that what
thus emanates from a being is, in fact, the being himself. We can
see in this the ground on which an identity is asserted in the New
Church between the Lord and the Word. Its application to the subject in hand will be seen from the paragraph that follows:" That the Comforter (Paracletos), or Holy Spirit, is Divine Truth proceeding
from the Lord, manifestly appears, for it is said the Lord himself spake to them'the truth,' aud declared that, when he should go away, he would send the
Comforter,'the Spirit of TrLith,' who should guide them' info all truth,' and
that he would not speak from himself, but from the Lord. And because Divine
Truth proceeds from the human principle of the Lord glorified, and not imme6




82             Letters to a Trinitarian. —Letter VIII.
diately from his Divine itself, inasmuch as this was glorified in itself from eternity, it is therefore here said,'The Holy Spirit was not yet, because that Jesus
was not yet glorified.' It is greatly wondered at in heaven that they who compose the church do not know that the Holy Spirit, which is Divine Truth, proceeds from the human principle of the Iord, and not immediately from his
Divine, when notwithstandlingly the ldoctrine received in the whole Christian
world teaches ihat, —'As is the Father, so also is the Son, uncreate, infinite
eternal, omnipotent, God. Lord, neither of them is first or last, nor greatest or
least. Christ is God anld man: God from the nature of the Father, and man
from the nature of the rnother; but althouglh he is God and man, yet nevertheless they are not two, but one Christ; he is one, not by changing the divine
ity into the humanity, but by the divinity receiving to itself the humanity.
He is altogether one, not by a commixture of two natures, but one person
alone, because as the body and soul are one man, so God and, man is one
Christ.'  This is from the Creed of Athanasius.  Now forasmuch as the
divinity and humanity of the Lord arenot two, but one person alone, and are
united as the soul and body, it may be lknown that the Divine Proceeding,
which is called the Holy Spirit, goes forth and proceeds from his Divine prillciple by the Hutan, thus from the Divine Hiuman, for nothing whatsoever call
proceed from the body, unless as from the soul by the body, inasmuch as all
the life of the body is from its sout. And because, as is the Father so is the
Son, uncreate, itnfilite, eternal, omnipotent, God and Lord, and neither of them'
is first or last, nor greatest or least, it follows that the Divine Proceeding, which
is called the Holy Spirit, proceeds fiom the Divinity itself of the Lord by his
Humanity, and not from another Divinity, which is called the Father, for the
Lord teaches that he and the Father are one, and that the Father is in him;'
and he in the Father. But the reason why most in the Christianl world think
otherwise in their hearts, and hence believe otherwise, the angels have said
is grounded in this circumstance, that they think of the Human principle of
the Lord as' separate from his Divine, which nevertheless is contrary to the
doctrine which teaches that the Divinity and Humanity of the Lord are not two
persons, but one person alone, and united as soul and body. Inasmuch as
the Divine Proceeding, which is Divine Truth, flows into man, both immediately and mediately, by angels and spirits, it is therefore believed that the
Holy Spirit is a third person, distinct from.the two who are called Father and
Son; but I can assert that no one ill heaven knows any other Holy Divine
Spirit, than the Divine Truth proceeding from the Lord." —A.. E. 183.
At the risk of trespassing a little on your patience, I give ano lier
extract which has come before me since penning the foregoing.
"In the Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Lord, it has been
shown that God is one in person and in essence, that there is a trinity in Him,
and that that God is the Lord; also, that His trinity is called Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, and that the Divine from whom all things are, is called the Father,
the Divine Human, the Son, and the Divine proceeding, the Holy Spirit. Althoutgh the latter is called the Divine proceeding, yet no one knows vlwhy it is
called proceeding: this is unknown, because it is also unknowin that the Lord
appears before the angels as a sun, and that heat, which in its essence is divine love, and light, which in its essence is divine wisdom, proceeds fromi that
sun. These truths being unknown, it was impossible to know that tIhe Divine
proceeding was not divine by itself, and thus the Athanasian doctrine of the
trinity declares that there is one person of the Father, anothler of the Son, and
another of the Holy Spirit: but when it is known that the Lord appears as a
sun, a just idea may be had of the Divine proceeding, or the Holy Spirit, as
being one with the Lord, yet proceeding from Him, as heat and light from the
sun; which is the reason why the angels are in divine heat and divine light ill
the same proportion as they are in love and wisdom. No one who is igtnorant
that the Lord appears ili the spiritual world as a sun, and that His Divine




The Incarnation.                     83
Spirit proceeds from Him in this manner, could ever know what is meant by
proceeding, whether it only means communicating those things which are of
the Father and the Son, or illuminating and teaching. Still, even in this case,
there is no ground for enlightened reason to acknowledge the Divine proceeding as separately divine, and to call it God, and make a distinction, when it is
known that God is one, and that He is omnipresent:"-D. L. ~ W. 146.
This wvill doubtless suffice on this head, as it is less necessary to
dwell upon the identity of the Holy Spirit with Jehovah, inasmuch
as there will be comparatively little difficulty in admitting it, when
once the identity of the Son with the Father is conceded. That the
prevailing idea, in the Church, of the Holy Spirit is that of a person in some wvay proceeding from the Father,' or from both, is
beyond question. This is conclusively met in one of Swedenborg's
Memorable Relations where he was auditor to a discussion on this
subject. One of the speakers says, "'What then is the Holy Ghost,
mentioned in the writings of' the evangelists and Paul, by whom so
many learned men of the clergy, and particularly of our church, profess
themselves to be guided?  Who at this day in the Christian world
denies the Holy Ghost and his operation?' Upon this, one who sat
on the second row of seats, turned himself, and said,'The Holy
Spirit is the divinity proceeding from Jehovah the Lord; you insist
that the Holy Spirit is a person by himself and a God by himself,
but what is a person going forth and proceeding from a person except it be operation going forth and proceeding?  One person
cannot go forth and proceed from another through a third, but operation can. Or what is a God going forth and proceeding from a God,
but divinity going forth and proceeding? One God cannot go forth
and proceed from another, and by another, but divinity can go forth
and proceed from one God. Is not the Divine Essence one and indivisible, and since the Divine Essence or the Divine Esse is God, is
not God one and indivisible?' After hearing these things, they that
sat on the seats came to this unanimous conclusion, that the Holy
Ghost is not a person by itself, nor a God by itself, but that it is the
holy divine going forth and proceeding from the one only omnipresent God who is the Lord. To this the angel who stood at the
golden table, on which was the Word, said,'It is well; we do not
read in any part of the Old Testament that the prophets spake the
Word from the Holy Spirit, but from Jehovah the Lord; and wherever the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the New Testament, it signifies
the proceeding divinity, which is the divine, that illustrates, teaches,
vivifies, reforms, and regenerates."'-A. R. 962.
On the whole I see not but that I am entitled to propose the question, whether the view above presented of the Divine Trinity in
Unity, is not one that fairly meets the demands of the most rigid
exegesis of the Scriptures, and at the same time, of the most enlightened reason? Does it not adequately harmonize all the discordant
theories which have been offered on the subject, and propose a common ground on which all can meet who receive the Old and New
Testament as embodying the inspired counsels of heaven, and constituting the infallible rule of faith?  While it dissolves in rational




84           Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter VIII.
light the alledged mystery hanging over the manner in which the
Trinily exists, it still leaves, without the attempt to penetrate it, the
mystery of the Divine Essence, of which we can only say that it is,
while it must for- ever be incompetent to created beings to comprehend what it is. That the expose which I have attempted, rests in
great measure upon the asserted illumination of Swedenborg, cannot
vacate the intrinsic evidence of truth accruing to it from its obvious
agreement wvith the genuine import of Scripture. You can never
show that the claim which he prefers is a mere nullity. There is
nothing in the laws of the human mind-nothing in the known order
of the Divine Providential government of the world —which absolutely forbids the expectancy of such a mission as that with which
he declares himself to have been invested. Nor can you say with
any justice, that his advocates are following a mere ignis fatuus in
embracing the doctrines he has announced. It is impossible for a fair
mind to charge with absurdity a single extract that I have given, or
to say that the credence yielded to their truth implies a mental weakness in their recipients. "These are not the words of him that hath
a devil or is mad." Our calmest reason assents to his propositions
from their self-evidencing power, nor have we the least fear that
their soundness can be soundly impunged; and it is upon internal testimony equally strong, that we receive all parts of his amazing disclosures. In regard to no feature of the system do we find the evideuce less luminous or convincing. That it often contravenes established dogmas-that it brings against them  the most emphatic
charges of fallacy and falsity-is with us no argument of error, but
rather the reverse. We should believe him less if' he respected them
more. We perceive that in all cases his principles and premises
necessitate his conclusions, and we find too that his principles, as they
are unassailable, never are assailed by opponents, but always the
conclusions. In the present case the fundamental principlelaid down
is that of a necessary and eternal distinction between the Esse and
Existere of the Divine nature. Is not this true?  What is the import of the sublime declaration, "I AM THAT I AM?" Is not this a
synonim  of  JEHOVAH, and does it not imply the absolute and underived Esseity of the Most High?  What can be more pertinent
to this point than the striking elucidations of Prof. Lewis in his
chapter on the "Philosophy of the verb To Be?" where he contends
that Etal, 1 anz, " expresses essential, eternal, necessary, self-existent, independent, uncaused essence or being;" and where too he says that it
denotes "a general and most important proposition, namely, that the
idea of goodness is not merely relative or accidental, or the result of
the mind's generalization from outward facts, but an absolute and
eternal verity; that it has an absolute existence in the Divine Mind,
and that there is a fixed foundation for the absolute, and not merely
relative, nature of moral distinctions." —(Plat. Theol., p. 171, 173).
This is by no means remote from Swedenborg's incessant inculcation,
that the Divine esse is the Divine Good, of which the Divine Truth
is the existere in form. And what is the distinction in effect between
the two, but that between  ipt, to be, and yropal, to become, which Pref.




The Incarnation.                         85
Lewis has so clearly developed, and to which he justly attaches so
much importance?
But having already transcended the proper limits of a single letter
I forbear to enlarge upon the various aspects of the subject which
invite discussion.  Several points of interest to which I have hitherto
barely alluded, will come before us hereafter for fuller consideration,
especially the grounds on which the idea of disjunction between the
Father and the Sonhas established itself in the minds of most Christians.  For the present, I conclude by presenting from Swedenborg,
a kind of resume of the whole subject.
"That by the Father, when he is mentioned by the Lord, is understood the
Dvine Good which is in the I,ord and from the Lord, is; because the Lord called
the Divine principle which was in himt from conception, his Father. and whichi
was the esse of his life, to which Divine principle He united His Human, when he
was in the world. That the Lord called this principle his Father, appears
malifest from this circumstance, that he thought that he himself was one with
the Father; as in John:'I and my Father are one.' Again:'Believe that
the Father is in me, and I am in Him.' Again:' He that seeth me seeth him
that sent me.' Again:' If ye had knrown me, ye should have lwvown my Father
also; and from henceforth ye knew him, and have seen him. Philip saith
unto him, Lord, show us the Father. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so
long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen
me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, show us the Father.
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The Father
that dwelleth in me he doeth the worlks. Believe me, that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me.' Again:' If ye had known me ye should have lknown
my Father also.' Again:'I am not alone,. because the Father is with me.'
Inasmuch as the Lord is one with the Father, therefore he also declares, that
all things of the Father are his, and his are the Father's: that all things that
the Father hath are his; that the Father hath. given all things into the hand of
the Son; and that all things are delivered to him by the Father; that no one
knoweth the Son but the Father, nor any the Father except the Son; also, that
no one hath seen the Father except,he Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that the Word was with God, that the Word was God, and that the Word
was made flesh. From this latter passage it is also manifest that they are
one, for it. is said that' the Word was witth God, and the Word was God.' It
is plain, too, that the Human principle of the Lord was God, for it is said,' and
the Word was made flesh.' Inasmlruch then as all things of the Father are also
the Lord's, and inasmuch as he and the Father are one, therefore the Lord,
when he ascended into heaven, said to his disciples,'All power is given to
me, in heaven and in earth;' by which he taught his disciples that they should
approach him alone, because he alone can do all things, as he also said to them
before,'Without mne ye can do nothing.' Hence it appears how these words
are to be understood.:'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh
unto the Father but by me;' namely, that the Father is approached when the
Lord is approached. Amongst many other reasons why the Lord so often
named the Father as atnother, was this, that by Father, in the internal
or sl)iritllal sense, is understood the Divine Good, and by Son, the Diviine
iruth, each in the Lord and from the Lord; for the Word is written by correspondences, and is thus adapted both for nien and angels. The Father,
therefore, is mentioned, that the Divine Good of the Lord may be perceived
by the atgels, who are principled in the spiritual sense of the Word; and the
Soni of God and the Son of Mall are mentioned, that the Divine Truth in like
maiiiier may be perceived.
"To what has been said above, it is here to be added, as an appendix. that
if it be assumed' as doctrine, and acknowledged, that the Lord is one with the




86              Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IX.
Father, and that his Human principle is Divine from the Divinity in himself.
light will be seen in every particular of the Word; for what is assumed as
doctrine, and aclinowledged from doctrine, appears in light when the Word
is read. The Lord also, from whoml all light proceeds, and who has all power,
enlightens -those who are in this acknowledgment. But, on the other hand,
if it be assumed and acknowledged as doctrine, that the Divine principle of
the Father is another principle separate from that of the Lord, nothing will
be seen in light in the Word'; inasmuch as the man who is in that doctrine
turns himself from one Divine being to anotlher, and from the Divinity of
the Lord, which he may see, which is effected by thought and faith, to a
Divinity which he cannot see, for the Lord says:' Ye have never heard his
(the Father's) voice at any time, nor seen his form;' and to believe in and
love a Divine being, which cannot be thought of under any form, is impossible."- A. E. 200.
Yours, &c.
LETTER IX.
THE GLORIFICATION.
DEAR SIR,
THE course of the present discussion up to this point has been
mainly devoted to the attempt to unfold the true constitution of our
Lord's person, both before and after the advent, and to develop the
grounds on which the New Church holds to a Trinity in the Divine
nature, while at the same time most strenuously rejecting the Tripersonality which that doctrine has been supposed to involve. I have
endeavored to show  that a Divine Humanity pertains essentially to
Jehovah, and that in the Incarnation this Divine Humanity "passed
from first principles to last." On no other grounds do we hold such an
incarnation to be possible, and contend, consequently, that the prevalent
doctrine of Christendom, by ignoring the fact of such a Divine Humanity, does in effect deny the fundamental verity of the incarnation, and substitute for it the fallacy of the simple adjunction of the
Divine to the Human nature. This is the inevitable issue of ascribing to our Lord a human soul as well as a human body derived from
the virgin mother. Let it be understood, on the other hand, that the
inmost element of our Lord's being was, by conception, from the'Father, and therefore as the Divine essence is indivisible, was the
Father Himself, and we have a clear and consistent enunciation of
the doctrine of Christ's Divinity, without the least invasion of the
great truth of the absolute Unity of the Godhead.  We behold God
and man united in Him in one person, and the key afforded us, on
this view, for a rational explication of the various and sometimes
apparently conflicting texts of Scripture bearing upon the subject.




The Glorification.                        87
With such a presentation of the grand theme before us, it is at
least sufficiently curious to contemplate in juxtaposition with it the
following extract from  Professor Norton's " Statement of Reasons,"
in which he unequivocally denies the possibility of the truth of such
a doctrine as Swedenborg has proposed.
"With the doctrine of the Trinity, is connected that of the HYPOSTATIC UNION,
as it is called, or the doctrine of the union of tlhe divine and human, natures in
Christ, in such a mannrer that these two natures constitute but one person. But this
doctrine may be almost said to, have pre-eminence in incredibility above that
of the Trinity itself. The latter can be no object of belief when regarded in
connexion with that of the Divine Unity; for these two doctrines directly contradict each other. But the former, without reference to any other doctrine,
does in itself involve propositions as clearly self-contradictory, as any which
it is in the power of language to express. It teaches that Christ is both God
and man. The proposition is very plain and intelligible. The words God and
max, are among those which are in most common use, and the meaning of
which is best defined and understood. There cannot (as with regard to the
terms employed in stating the doctrine of the Trinity) be any controversy
about the sense in which they are used in this proposition, or, in other words,
about the ideas which they are intended to express. And we perceive that
these ideas are wholly incompatible with each other. Our idea of God is of
ant infinite being; our idea of man is of a finite being; and we perceive that
the same being cannot be both infinite and finite.. There is nothing clear in
language, no proposition of any sort can be affirmed to be true, if we cannot
affirm this to be true,-that it is impossible that the sarme being should be finite:.ud infinite; or, in other words, that it is impossible that the same being
should be man and God. If the doctrine were not familiar to us, we should(
revolt from it, as shocking every feeling of reverence toward God; —and it
would appear to us, at the same time, as mere an absurdity as can be pre
sented to the understanding(. No words can be more destitute of meaning,
so far as they are intended to convey a propositions which the mind is capable of admitting, than such language as we sometimes find used, in which Christ is declared to be at once the Creator of the universe. and a man of sorrows; God
omniscient and omnipotent, and a feeble man of imperfect knowledge.
"The doctrine of the Trinity, then, and that of the union of two natures in
Christ, are doctrines, which, when fairly understood, it is impossible. from the
nature of the human mind, should be believed. They involve manifest contradictions, and no man can believe what he perceives to be a contradiction.
In what has been already said, I have not been bringing argumemnts to disprove
these doctrines; I have merely been showing that they are intrinsically incapable of any proof whatever; for a contradiction cannot be proved; —that they
are of such a character, that it is impossible to bring arguments in their support, and unnecessary to adduce arguments against them." —Nortoni's Statement
of Reasonls, p. 17-19, 22.
You will see from this that it is not possible to array two distinct
exhibitions of Christian doctrine in more direct antagonism with each
other than is done by the citation of this passage in connexion with
the scope of my previous reasonings. To what extent the author
will be admitted as an accredited expounder of Unitarian sentiments,
I know not; but yourself and my other readers must judge on which
side the truth lies, if the inspired oracles are to be the standard of
faith; and also where there is any intermediate ground on which the
Lord's essential Divinity can be safely made to rest.  For myself, I see
none. If the doctrine of Swedenborg on that head is not the true doc



8813          Letters to a Trinitarianl.-Letter IX.
trine, I despair of finding it either in the Bible or out of it, and I should
despair too of successfully refuting the above argument on the basis
of the common Trinitarian theory.  If you feel competent to the
task, I hope you will undertake it. For myself. my only resource is
to array against it the tenor of the foregoing course of argument.
According to the plan proposed, having treated at some length the
mode of the incarnation, I am now brought to the consideration of the
ends to be accomplished by it. This would, perhaps, most naturally
enforce upon me the direct and formal discussion of the doctrine of
the Atonement, which is commonly regarded as embodying or concentrating within itself the ends of the Divine Benevolence in ordaining the assumption of human nature on the part of the Son of God.
That doctrine I shall submit to examination as I proceed, but my
purpose is to anticipate what would perhaps appear to be the regular
course of the argument, and to devote the present letter to the subject of our Lord's Glorification. I do this because in the views of the
New Church, the process of glorification stands in most intimate connexion with the incarnation, as it commenced with the assumption of
the natural humanity and reached its acme simultaneously with the
laying it aside. As the design, in fact, of his becoming incarnate
was that he might be glorified, and by being glorified might become
the Saviour of men, this fact prescribes the more orderly mode of discussion, and the subject thus treated will virtually cover the ground
of the Atonement, as it will evince that nothing of a vicarious character is involved in the economy of redemption. By showing what
the Atonement is, we show at the same time what it is not, and if
there be any basis of truth to - what I shall now advance, it will at
least be made clear that the essence of our Lord's atonement was not
concentrated in his death on the cross, or in what is termed the sacrifice there offered up to Divine justice. But of this you will be able
to judge better hereafter.
That the Lord was appointed to pass through a process termed
glorification is abundantly evident from  the following among other
passages:-"After Judas had gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of
man glorified and God is glorified in Him. If God be glorified in
Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straihtwvay
glorify Him."  "Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son that thy
Son also may glorify Thee." "Now is my soul troubled; and He
said, Father glorify thy name; and there came a voice from heaven,
saying, I have both glorified it and will glorify it again."  "Ought
not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his rlory?"
The question occurs, what is to be understood by this language?
What is the precise idea to be attached to the word glorify in these
connexions? It can hardly, I think, be doubted that the common conception awakened by the term is that of exaltation, dignity, majesty,
dominion. The glory of an earthly sovereign consists in the power,
wealth, splendor, and pre-eminence with which he is invested, and
this idea we naturally transfer to Christ after his resurrection from the
dead, when we regard him as seated at the right hand of the Father,
and surrounded with all the insignia of celestial royalty. The domi



The GlorfiJication.                  89
nant impression, therefore, produced by the term is that of a certain
Divine splendor which the mind connects with the prerogatives that
He enjoys in his risen and ruling state.
But it is evident that all such conceptions amount to nothing except so far as they agree with the intrinsic and elemental nature of
the Divine Being. The glory predicated of him must be very different from any kind of outward display of dignity or majesty. It must
have direct reference to the Love and Wisdom which are the all in all
of his essence and perfection. Imagine for a moment the application of
the term to a human being. So long. as he abides in the flesh, in the
pres'ent world, it will inevitably refer itself to some kind of imposing
external manifestation, to something in his circumstances, his achievements, or his possessions-but still to the external and bodily man.
But suppose the man to be divested of the material body; contemplate
him as a pure spirit in the spiritual world, and if aught of glory be
predicated of him it must pertain to his spirit solely; it must be some
property, phase, or attribute of his love or intellect or both; in a
word, it must be something which is appropriate to the interior and
essential nature of a being composed of the fundamental principles
of will and understanding. So also in reference to the Lord Himself. He is essentially Love and Wisdom, and his glory must be the
glory of these principles in some form or other of their manifestation;
for we are continually remanded, in the theology of Swedenborg, to
the very first principles of all things. Consequently he says again
and again that God is heaven, because when heaven is analysed it
resolves itself into the very being of God. So he says also that a
spirit is his own love, because his love is his essence. It is on this
ground, moreover, that he informs us that every thing in the Word
has an ultimate reference to the Lord. The natural, the spiritual,
the celestial senses are, as it were, unrolled, as so many swathings,
and then the Divine appears. Hence, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
interiorly represent the Lord, each in some one of the aspects in
which he is to be viewed. And who can doubt this when it is said
of the people of Israel as representing the church, "My servant
David shall rule over them." Is not the Lord ultimately indicated
under the title David?  And was not Abraham, for instance, as fit
a representative of the Lord as David?
You will perceive from this that the idea conveyed by the term
glorification as applied to our Lord, is far different from that of a
mere splendid or glorious state resulting from the exercise of kingly
dominion or from the bare display of the most exalted prerogatives
whether in the midst of angels or men. It is a term applicable to an
internal or subjective condition which in the case of our Lord, viewed
in his Humanity, brought him into the capacity of saving the human
race. On the common theory of Redemption the glorification of
Christ was a mere resulting effect, in the Divine economy, from the
previous state of humiliation and suffering to which he condescended
to stoop, and could not be said even to have commenced so long as
that state continued. Indeed it is for the most part spoken of as a
reward for the voluntary endurance of the pains and afflictions which




90                Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IX.
he underwent on our behalf, and our ideas of it are governed by the
letter of such texts as the following:-" VWho for the joy that was set
before him  endured the cross, despising the  shame, and is now  set
down on the right hand of God."   But on the higher and truer view,
as I conceive it to  be, of the  New  Church, the glorification  commenced  from  the outset of the earthly humanity of Jesus and ran
parallel with it to the termination of his career in the flesh, when it
reached its culminating and consummating point inll the complete deposition of everythirrng that bore the taint of the maternal infirmity.
So far from  being a mere result and sequence of the atoning work of
the  Saviour it was the very essence of the atonement itself, apart
from which the term loses entirely its genuine force. Instead of indicating a state into which a transition was first made upon his emergence from  the depth of his humiliation into the height of his exaltation, it denotes an interior process which was going on through the
whole  course of his  earthly pilgrimage, and which  resulted in the
complete  unition of the Human  with the Divine, somewhat as the
process of regeneration in a man results in " his body of vileness
being fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ.*   That there is
a difficulty in bringing this sublime doctrine down to the comprehension of the natural man we are forced to admit, because it involves
the  recognition of the  process of regeneration which can never be
adequately grasped except by one who has in  some decree  experienced it.t  Still the fact that a doctrine of revelation may require,
in order to its full apprehension, the higher intelligence of the spiritual mind, cannot fairly be urged as an argument of its falsity, so long
as the apostolic declaration holds good, that "the natural man receiveth  not the  things of God; for they are foolishness unto  him;
neither can  he know  them, because  they are spiritually  discerned."
Nevertheless, I have assumed  the task of endeavoring  to enunciate
the truth on this head, and those that are spiritual, who "judge all
things," will find in themselves a criterion of judgment as to  the
claims of the doctrine.4
*" The regeneration of man is an image of the Lord's glorification; that is, in rereneration as in a kind of image it appears how the Lord glorified his hutan, or what is the
same, made it divine; for as the Lord alt'ogether changed his human state into divine, so
also the Lord with man when he regenerates man, altogether changes his state, for he
makes his old man new." —A  C. 3296.
t " That the Lord as to the human was made new, that is, glorified, or what is the
same, Was made divine, no one can ever conceive, thus neither believe, who is in worldly
and corporeal loves; he is altogether ignorant what the spiritual and celestial is, nor indeed is lie willing to know; but he who is not in worldly and corporeal loves, is capable
of perceiving this, for he believes that the Lord is one with tlhe Father, and that from him
proceeds all that is holy; consequently that he is divine even as to the human, and whloever believes in his manner (or measure) perceives."-A. C. 3212
[ "Inasmuch as it now follows concerning the separation of the former human, which
the Lord had front the mother, and atlength concerning its full. rejection, it is to be known
that the Lord successively and continually, even to the last of his life, when he was glorified, separated from himself, an'd put off that which was merely hnman, viz., what he
derived foomn the Inothier, till at length he was no longer her son, but the son of God, as
well with respect to' nativity as to conception, and this one with the Father, and himself
Jehovah. Moreover, as to what concerns the separation and )putting off of the maternal
human, they do not comprehend this, who have merely corporeal ideas concerning the




The Glorification.                          91
If I have at all succeeded in my object hitherto I have made it
somewhat obvious not only that Jesus Christ is the true and only Jehovah, but also that a Divine Humanity, in " first principles" is to be
predicated of his very nature.  In his incarnation this Divine Humanity passed into " last principles," and He became God in Human
flesh.,  The human nature, howevYer, received from  the mother was
a fallen nature, as she could impart no other.*  It was consequently
liable to temptation, to suffering, and to sin, though "he knew  no
sin," nor was " iniquity found in his lips."  But it wxas in the economy
of redemption that this fallen, infirm, and peccable humanity, hereditarily received from the mother, should be gradually put off, and a
perfectly Divine humanity, received from the Father, gradually put on.
" He put off the human," says Swedenborg, "taken from the mother,
which in itself was like the human of another man, and thus natural,
and put on a Human from  the Father, which wa.s in itself lilke his
Divine, and thus substantial, from which the Human also was made
Divine."  The process by which this was effected was our Lord's
glorification. This is thus explained.
"The Lord, by the most grievous temptation-combats, reduced all tlhings in
himself into divine order, insomuch that there remained nothing at all of the
human which he had derived from the mother.; so that he was not made new
as another mail, but altogether divine; for man, who is made new by regeneration, still retains ill himself an inclination to evil, yea evil itself, but is withheld from evil by an iliflLx of the life of the Lord's love, and this by exceedingly
strong power; whereas the Lord entirely cast out every evil which was hereditary to him from the mother, and made himself divine, even as to the vessels,
that is, as to truths; this is what. in the Word is called glorification.-"A. C.
3318
But in order to a clearer discovery of this great truth, it is important to advert to certain principles in the constitution of our nature
which rendered such a process necessary.  Among the remarkable
developments made  by  Swedenborg  is  that of a  clear distinction between  the external and  the internal man..This is not a
distinction simply between the body and the spirit.  It is rather a
distinction between the animal or sensitive, and the spiritual and heavenly nature, though pertaining to each. Still it is one which recognizes the animal or psychical affections and appetencies as bearing a very close relation to the body, and as manifesting their power
Lord's human, and think concerning it as concerning the human of another rman, whereby they are offended at it; such persons are not aware that as the life is, suct is the Ian,
and that the Lord had by conception, a Divine Esse of life, or Jehovah, and that a like
esse of life had existed in his human by union."-A. C. 2649.
* " The Lord's divine good natural, is what was Divine to Him from nativity, for He
was conceived from Jehovah; hence He had a Divine'esse from nativity, which was to
Him lor a soul, and consequently the inmost of his life. This was exteriorly clothed by
those things which He assumed from the motller, and because this from thie mother was
not good, but in itself evil, therefore He expelled it of his own proper power, chliefly by
temptation-combats, nti(I afterwards conjoined this human, which lie made new in -Iim.
self, with the divine good which He had foiom nativity."-A. C. 4641.




92              Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IX.
and predominance chiefly through it.  The following extracts develop
the distinction more in detail:"What the internal man is, and what the external, is known to few, if any,
in the present day. It is generally supposed that they are one and the same;
and the reason of this supposition is, because the generality of persons believe
that they do what is good. and think what is true of themselves. or from proprium, this being a necessary consequence of submission to its influence.
Thie interntal maln is as distinct from the external as heaven from earth. Both the
learned and the unlearned, when reflecting on the stubject, entertain no other
cocelption respecting the internal man but as consisting of thought, because
it is within; and believe that the external man is the body, with its sensual
and voluptuous principle, because they are without.  Thought, however,
whichl is thus ascribed to the internal man, does not, in fact, belong thereto;
for in the internal man there are nothing but goods and truths derived from
the Lord, conscience being implanted in the interior man by the Lord. Thus
the wvicked, yea, the very worst of men, and even those who are destitute of
conscience, have a principle of thought; hence it is evident that the faculty
of thoutgoht does not belong to the internal, but to the external manl. That the
material body, with its sensual and voluptuous principle, does not constitute
the& external man, is manifest from this consideration, that spirits, who have
no material bodies, have an external man as well as men on earth.
The internal man is formed of what is celestial and spiritual; and the external
man of sensual things, not belonging to the body, but derived from bodily
things; and this is the case not only with man, but also with spirlits." —A. C.: They who have only a general idea concerning the internal and external
man, believe that it is the internal man which thinks and which wills, and the
external which speaks and acts, since to think and to will is somewhat internal, arnd thence to speak and to act is external. But it is to be noticed that
not only the internal man thinks and wills, but also the external.' —-A. C. 9702,
9703
" It is scarcely known at this day what the external manl is; for it is supposed that the things appertaining to the body alone constitute the external
man, as his sensuals, namely, the [louch, the taste, the smell, the hearing,
and the sight; as also the appetites and pleasures. But these only constitute
the outermost man, which is merely corporeal. The external man properly is
constituted by scientifics appertaining to the memory, aind affections appertaining to the love with which manl is imbued; also by the sensuals which
are proper to spirits, with the plleasures which likewise appertain to spirits.'That these properly constitute the external or exterior man, may appear from
men in another life, or from spirits who, in like manner have an external man,
and an interior, and consequently an internal man. This body is only as an
integument or shell, which is dissolved, in order that man may truly live, and
that all things appertaining to him may become more excellent."-A. C. 1713.
If this be sound we are shut up to the conclusion that the external
man is by no means identical with the bodily fabric.  It stands, indeed, in close relation to the body and is the seat of sensation, and
as there is always some degree of thought where there is sensation,
so the power of thought belongs to the external man. Hence it
follows that the Lord received not merely a body from  the virgin
mother, but also an external or psychical man, and for this reason
we cannot say, without qualification, that He had no human soul;
for in strict propriety of spee6h the word soul (qvx,, psyche) denotes




The Glorification.                      93
this very element of our nature which we have above described
as constituting the external man. Such an element our Lord did
undoubtedly derive from his maternal origin, and in virtue of this
it could be said that he grew in wisdom  and knowledge.  But this
psychical or natural principle was neither in him, nor is it in us, the
inmost esse of being, although it is true that in the prevailing usages
of speech the term soul is applied to denote such an inmost principle
of life and being.  In the case of our Lord his internal essence was
Jehovah or the essential Divine itself, and when we say that he had
no human soul we always mean this, although aware that it is not a
rigidly exact mode of speech, according to which he had a human
soul, that is to say, an external man, as above described.
These two principles, the external and the internal, are opposed to
each other, the internal man inclining to heaven and heavenly
things, and the external to earth and earthly things, and the end of
regeneration is to bring them into harmony. The external is thus to
be made not only a fit instrument, but a living image, of the internal,
and to incline, like it, to heavenly things, and only to earthly in subordination to heavenly.  Now in order that our Lord might be truly
a man it was necessary that he should be possessed of both these
principles, and in order that he might be a Saviour, competently endowed, that they should both be brought to act in unison. But in
His case that which answers to our internal man was Jehovah, or the
Essential Divinity itself, whereas his external, being derived from a
human parent, was subject to human infirmity, and therefore before
I-He could enter into perfect oneness with the Father his external man
was to be formed anew, so as to become the exact image of his internal; in other words, his Human was to become Divine.  In this
process consisted his glorification, and this process was gradual. It
is thus more fully explained by one of the ablest expounders of
Swedenborg.
"The Lord Jesus Christ, while in the world, so far as he had anything appertaining to him from the mother, or so far as lIe was the Son of Mary, was
not strictly One with the Father: but in proportion as what He received from
her was put off, and a Divine Human Nature, received or brought forth from
the Father, put on in its place, He advanced towards perfect union, till at length,
all the life of the maternal nature being extinguished at the passion of the cross,
and the Divine life from the Father being brought down into the lowest natural
principle in lieu of it at the resurrection, He thenceforward, and for ever, was,
and is, One with the Father,-One God in One Divine person; his Divine Soul
being the very Father or what is called God in his inmost essence, and his
Divine Body being the Son of God, or a clothing of the Divine Essence, brought
forth solely from that Essence itself, to be the medium of its manifestation to
mankind." —Noble's Lectures, p. 118, 119.
"Even the natural body, it is to be remembered, was conceived of Jehovah,
and wvas, as to its inmost princi ples, divine from conception, having for its inmost
soul the whole Divine Essence. The Divine Essence, while the Lord Jesus
Christ was living as a man in the world, was in the continual effort to assimilate the assumed Humanity to itself. In the interior forms of that human
nature a glorifying-process was going on, from the first to the last moment of
his life. The Divine Principle within kept descending lower and lower, im



94              Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IX.
parting its own divine nature to the interior forms of the human essence in
succession; extirpating everything that partook of infirmity.-'everything, in
fact, that was dqrived from the mother; but yet retaining every human principle entire, though rendered infinitely perfect and truly divine. When all
that belongs to man beyond or above the mere shell of clay had been submitted to this wonderful process, the crucifixion took place: and then, the
merely human life being altogether extinct, the divine life descending to the
extremes of the bodily frame, renewing the whole by its descent. This fully
accomplished, He arose again with his human form complete, nothing being
lost or left behind,-a truly Divine AMan, having in his Glorious Person every
thing, and every principle, which is found in the constitution of man, but all
perfectly assimilated irt nature to the pure Divinity Itself. In this Divine Humanity, therefore, He is truly the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last;
-the very immediate Eise or Source of being to everything that exists, the
immediate Upholder and Supporter of all things, both in heaven and earth.
Thus the child once born, the son once given, is of a truth the Mighty God,
the Everlasting Father upon whose shoulders, of right, the government rests,
and to whom belong glory and dominion for ever."-Ibid. 140, 141.
I could fain hope that the main position has been so stated as to be
exempt from the charge of disparaging in any degree the pure and
perfect character of the Saviour, but in order to guard still further
against any misapprehension, I insert the following paragraph, unfolding the sense in which alone evil is predicable of his nature.
" It may be a matter of surprise to many, to hear it said that hereditary evil
from the mother was with the Lord; but... it cannot be doubted that it was
so. It is altogether impossible for any man to be born of a human parent,
but he must thence derive evil. But there is a difference between hereditary
evil which is derived from  the father, and that which is derived from the
mother. Hereditary evil from the father is more interior, and remains to
eternity, for it can never be eradicated: the Lord had no such evil, since he
was born of Jehovah as his Father, and thus, as to internals, was Divine, or
Jehovah. But hereditary evil from the mother appertains to the external
manl: this was attached to the Lord. Thus the Lord wags born as another
man, and had infirmities as another man. That lie derived hereditary evil
from the mother, appears evidently from the circumstance of his enduring
temptations; for it is impossible that any one should be tempted who has no
evil, evil being that in man which tempts, and by which he is tempted. That
the Lord was tempted, and that he endured temptations a thousand times
more grievous than any man canll possibly sustain, and that he endured them
alone, and by his own proper power overcame evil, or the devil and all hell,
is also manifest. It is not possible for any angel to be tempted by the devil,
because, being in the Lord, the evil spirits cannot approach him even distantly, as they would be instantly seized with horror and fright; much less
could hell approach to the Lord, if he had been born Divine, that is, without
an adherence of evil from the mother. That the Lord also bore the iniquities
and evils of mankind, is a form of speaking common with preachers; but for
him to take upon himself iniquities and evils, except in an hereditary way,
was impossible. The Divine Nature is not susceptible of evil: wherefore,
that he might overcome evil by his own proper strength, which no man ever
could, or can do, and might thus alone become righteousness, he was willing
to be born as another man. There otherwise would have been no need that
he should be born; for he might have assumed the Human Essence without
nativity, as he had formerly done occasionally, when he appeared to those of
the Most Ancient Church, and likewise to the prophets. But in order that he
might also put on evil, to fight against and conquer it, and might thus at the
same time join together in himself the Divine Essence and the Human Essence, he came into the world. The Lord, however, had no actual evil, or




Thle Glorification.                     95
evil that was his own; as he himself declares in Jol-hn:'Which of you convicteth me of sin 3' viii. 46."-A. C. 1573..
Our Lord's external man, then, was to be brought into a state of
complete and harmonious union with the internal, which is otherwise
expressed by saying that his Human was to be, as it were, merged
in his Divine, and when this was fully effected he was fully glorified,
of which the passion of the cross was the last and consummating
step. The rationale of the process is thus strikingly unfblded in the
Arcana.
" It is known that the Lord was born as another man, and that when an infant He learnt to speak as another infant, and that He next grew in science,
also ill intelligence and wisdom; hence it is evident, that his human was not
Divine from nativity, but that He made it Divine by his own proper ability.
That it was done by his own proper ability was because He was conceived
by Jehovah, and hence the inmost of his life was Jehovah Himself; for the
inmost of the life' of every man, which is called soul, is from the father, but
what that inmost puts on, which is called body, is from the mother. That the
inmost of life, which is from the fattiher, is continually flowing in and operating upon the external, which is from the mother, and endeavoring to make
this like to itself, even in the womb, may be manifest from sons, in that they
are born to the natural inclination of the father, and in some cases grandsons
and great-grandsons to the natural inclinations of the grandfather and greatgrandfather: the ground and reason of this is, because the soul, which is
from the father, continually wills to make the external, which is from the
mother, like to itself. Since this is the case with manl, it may be manifest
that it was especially the case with the Lord. His inmost was the Divine Itself, because Jehovah Himself; for He was his only-begotten Son; and inasmuch as the inmost was the Divine Itself, could not this, more than in the
case of any man, make the external, which was from the mother, an image
of itself, that is, like- to itself, thus make the human, which was external,.
and fiom the mother, Divine? and this by his own proper ability, because
the Divine, which was inmost, from which He operated into the human, was
his, as the soul of man, which is the inlnost, is his. And whereas the Lord
advanced according to divine order, He made his human when He was in the
world, to be divine truth; but afterwards, when He was fully glorified, He
made it to be divine good, thus one with Jehovah.3'JA. C. 6716.
The drift of these remarks affords us a clew to the solution of the
apparent paradox of our Lord's praying to the Father as to another
person, when in fact, as I have endeavored to show, He was one
with the Father, as the Divine Truth is ever really one with the
Divine Good. It is doubtless this circumstance more than any other
which has tended to beget and confirm that idea of disjunction and
duality, in relation to the Father and the Son, which has become so
deeply.inwrought in the mind of Christendom, and which is at the
same time so utterly at war with all consistent views of the Divine
Unity. The general impression on this score derived from the literal
import of the Scriptures, in a multitude of passages, is in fact so
strong as to have produced a virtual denial of one only God manifested in the person of. Jesus of Nazareth, and the virtual assertion
of three Gods in three persons. I do not say that this belief is formally avowed, but I say that the prevalent doctrine constructively
amounts to this, and that every attempted explanation which would




96              Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IX.
render the alleged Trinity consistent with th'e admitted Unity avoids
a logical contradiction only by running on the fog-banks of mysterya mystery inscrutable, unapproachable, defiant alike of angelic and
human inquisition.  To the view of the New Church all mystery on
this score is completely banished.  We see an entire consistency between these apparently repugnant aspects of our Lord's character.
The solution given in the ensuing paragraphs of the seeming inconsistency is to us perfectly satisfactory.
"So long as the Lord was in a state of temptation, he spake with Jehovah
as with another; but so far as his Human Essence was united to his Divine, he
spake with Jehovah as with himself. This is evident from many passages in
the evangelists, and also from many in the prophets, and in David. The reason is plain from what has been said above concerning the hereditary from
the mother; in proportion as anything of this remained, he was as it were
absent from Jehovah, but in proportion as this was extirpated, he was present
and was Jehovah himself."'-A. C. 1745
" So far as the Lord was in the human not yet made Divine, so far He was
in humiliation; but so far as He was in the human made Divine. so far He
could not be in humiliation, for so far He was God and Jehovah. That He
was in humiliation when in the human not yet made Divine, was because the
human which He derived from the mother was hereditary evil, and this could
not approximate to the Divine without humiliation: for man in genuine humiliation divests himself of all ability to think and do anything front himself,
and leaves himself altogether to the Divine, and thus accedes to the Divine.
The Divine was indeed in the Lord, because he was conceived of Jehovah,
but this appeared remote, so far as his human was in the maternal hereditary;
for in spiritual and celestial things, dissimilitude of state is what causes removal and absence, and similitude of state is what causes approach and presence; and it is love which makes similitude and dissimilitude. From these
things now it may be manifest, whence was the state of humiliation with
the Lord when he was in the world; but afterwards when he put off the human which he derived from the mother, insomuch that he was no longer her
son, and put on, the Divine, then the state of humiliation ceased, for then he
was one with Jehovah." —A. C. 6866.
" Whereas the Lord had from the beginning a humanity from the mother,
and successively put off the same; therefore, during his abode in the world,
he passed through two states, one a state of humiliation, or emptying himself,
and the other a state of glorification, or union wvh the divinity which is called
the Father: the state of humiliation was at the time and in. the degree that he
was in the humanity from the mother; and the state of glorification, at the
time and in the degree that he was in the humanity from the Father. In the
state of humiliation he prayed unto the Father, as to one different from himself; but in the state of glorification he spake with the Father as with himrnself:
in this latter state he said, that the Father was in him, and he in the Father,
and that the Father and he were one; but int the state of humiliation, he underwent temptations, and suffered the cross, and prayed unto the Father not
to forsake him: for the divinity could not be tempted, much less could it suffer the cross. Hence then it appears, that by temptations, and continual victories therein, and by the passion of the cross, which was the last of those
temptations, he entirely conquered the hells, and fully glorified the humanity,
as was shown above. That the Lord put off the humanity from the mother,
and put on the humanity from the divinity himself, which is called the Father,
appears also from this consideration, that so often as the Lord spake by his
own mouth unto the mother, he did not call her mother, but woman." —Doct.
of the Lord, 35.




The Glorification.                     97
Is there anything in this calculated to stumble one who appreciates
what may be termed the twofold personality of the old and new man
in the regenerating Christian? Is anything more!palpable than the
conflict which is continually going on in the bosomh of such an individual, and which is so graphically described by Paul in the record
of his own experience?  "For that which I do I allow not: for what
I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that
which I would not, I consent unto the law that iK is good.  Now then
it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I linowthat in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will
is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find
not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would
not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do
it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would
do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God
after the inward man:' but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to
the law of sin which is in my members.  0 wretched man that I am!
who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God
through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself
serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."-Rom. vii.
15-25.
Here is the "law of the mind" and the "law of the flesh" in direct
antagonism with each other, each striving for the mastery, and each
alternately claiming to be the real ipseity or self-hood of the man.
Now is it not evident that so long as this contest continues, the mall
is internally divided in himself, and that just in proportion as the opposition is strong the external man is remote from the internal, and
as it grows weaker, that they come into conjunction? The end of
regeneration is that they may both be brought at one, and this, in respect to our Lord, was the very essence of atonement (at-one-ment),
as will perhaps be made more obvious in the sequel. But at present
I would exhibit, in a still clearer manner, the analogy between regeneration and glorification, which I do in the words of our author.
"The state of the Lord's glorification may in some manner be conceived
from the state of the regeneration of man, for the regeneration of man is an
image of the Lord's glorification; when man is regenerated, he then becomes
altogether another, and is made new, therefore also when he is regenerated,
he is called born again, and created anew; then, although he has a similar face,
and a similar speech, yet his mind is not similar; his mind, when he is regenerated is open towards heaven, and there dwells therein love to the Lord, and
charitytowards his neighbor with faith; it is the mind which makes another and
a new man; change of state cannot be perceived in the body of man, but in his
spirit, the body being only the covering of his spirit, and when it is put off, then
his spirit appears, and this in altogether another form when he is regenerated,
for it has then the form of love and charity in beauty inexpressible instead of
its pristine form, which was that of hatred and cruelty with a deformity also
inexpressible; hence it may appear what a regenerate person is, or one that
is born again, or created anew, viz., that he is altogether another and a new
nlan. From this image it may in some measure be conceived what the glorification of the Lord is; he was not regenerated as a man, but was made divine, and this from the veriest divine love, for lhe was made divine love itself;
7




98               Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter IX.
what his form then was, was made apparent to Peter, James, and John, when it
was given them to see him, not with the eyes of the body, bu r,'with the eyes
of the spirit, viz., that his countuenance shone like the sun, Matt. xxvii. 2; and
that this was his divine human, appears from the voice wvhich' then came out
of the cloud, saying,' This is my beloved son,' verse 5." —A. C. 3212.
In all this it is carefully to be noted, that, although Swedenborg
occasionally applies the term  "regenerated" to the Lord, he would
yet be understood to mean that the process, unlike what takes place
with man, is not effected by any influence or agency foreign to Himself, but it is due solely to his " own proper ability"'-it is all in Himself and from Himself.  It is thus but another term  for "glorified."
This is very clearly announced in the following passage.'That the
Lord might make the human divine, by an-ordinary way, he came into
the wvorld, that is, was willing to be born as another man, and to be
instructed as another, and as another to be re-born, but with the
dilference, that man is re-born of the Lord, but that the Lord not
only regenerated himself, but also glorified himself, that is, made
himself divine; further, that man is made new by an influx of charity and faith, but the Lord by love divine, which was in him, and
which was his; hence it may be seen, that the regeneration of man
is an image of the glorification of the Lord; or, what is the same,
that in the process of the regeneration of man, as in an image, may
be seen, although remotely, the process of the Lord's glorification."A. C. 3138.
I have thus endeavored to exhibit somewhat of a correct view of
the doctrine of our Lord's glorification as taught in the illuminated
theology of the New Church.  It is the doctrine of the gradual deposition of the natural Humanity received from  the mother, and of the
gradual assumption of a Divine Humanity received from the Father.
That our Lord, viewed as to his essential nature, had a Divine Human from eternity, is undoubtedly true, but in coming into the world
he superinduced, says Swedenborg, a natural Humanity upon the Divine, and this natural Humanity he successively glorified by victories
over temptation, which continually tended to bring down the Divine
influx into its forms, and thus eventually fill them with its own plenitude.* —But upon this and several other phases of the subject I shall
dwell at greater length in another letter.
Yours, &c.
* " He who is in the combats of temptation, and conquers, acquires to himself mnore
and more power over evil spirits, till at length they dare not assault hint; but in every
victory obtained, the Lord reduces to order the goods and truths from which the combat
was supported; when, consequently, these are purified; and, in proportion as thlcy are
purified, the celestial things of love are insinuated into the exterior man, and a correspondence is effected. Whosoever supposes that the external man can be reduced to. correspolldence without the combats of temptations, is deceived."-A. C. 1717. If haransony
be here substituted instead of corresponldc'ce, the idea will be perhaps more obvious to the
commonn reader.




The Glorification.                         99
LETTER X.
THE  GLORIFICATION.
DEAR SIR,
I MAY perhaps presume that' the tenor of my two last letters has
conveyed to you somewhat of' a correct general idea of the doctrine
of'the Lord's Glorification as held by the New Church.  You will
have seen that it is something altogether different from that state of'
post-resurrection glory and grandeur which is usually understood by
the term. It is the designation of an internal process which was continually'going on in the Lord's human nature, as the result of that
series of temptation-combats by which alone the hereditary evils of
the maternal principle could be expelled, and a Divine humanity be
substituted in its stead." It is in this view of the subject that we see
the ground of the analogy between the glorification of our Lord and
the regeneration of his people, to which I have already adverted.
Swedenborg has in fact given to the world what may be termed a
philosophy of temptation which constitutes one of the most remarkable
features of his system, and, as it lies at the very foundation of the
doctrine of regenerate and glorified life, I shall dwell at some length
upon it as essential to a right apprehension of the grand scope of my
argument.  And first, as to the fact of a continued series of temptations endured by the Lord throughout the whole period of his earthly
sojourn.
" That the life of the Lord, from his earliest childhood even to the last hour
of his life in the world, was a continual temptation and continual victory, appears from several passages in the Word of the Old Testament; and that it
did not cease with the temptation in the wilderness, is evident from  these
words in Luke:'After that the devil had finished all the temptation, he departed from him for a season,' iv. 13; also from this, that he was tempted
even to the death of the cross, thus to the last hour of his life in the world.
Hence it appears that the Lord's whole life in the world, from his earliest
childhood, was a continual temptation and continual victory; the last was,
when he prayed on the cross for his enemies; thus for all on the face of the
whole earth. In the Word of the life of the Lord with the Evangelists no
mention is made, except the last, of any other than his temptation in the wilderness; others were not disclosed to the disciples; those which were disclosed, appear, according to the literal sense, so light, as scarcely to be anything; for so to speak and so to answer is not any temptation; when yet, it
was more grievous than any human mind can conceive or believe.  No one
"' With respect to the Lord's essential life, it was a continual progression from the human to the Divine, even to absolute union; for that he might fight with the hells and
overcome them, it was needful that he should fight from the huLan, inasmuch as there
can be no combat with the hells from the Divine; therefore he was pleased to put on the
human as another man, to be an infant as another, and to grow up into sciences and
knowledges. That the Lord's progression from the human to the Divine was such can
be doubted by no one, who only considers that he was an infant, and learned to speak as
an infant, and so forth; but there was this difference, that the essential Divine was in
him, as being conceived of Jellovah."-A. C. 2323.




100              Letters to a Triinitarian.-Letter X.
can know what temptation is unless he has been in it.  The temptation
which is related in Matt. iv. 1 —11; Mark i. 12, 13; Luke iv. 1 —13. contains in
a summary the Lord's temptations, namely, that, ont of love towards the whole
human race, he fought against the loves of self and of the world, with which
thle hells were replete. All temptation is made against the love in which manl
is, and the degree of the temptation is according to the degree of the love. If
it is not against the love, there is no temptation. To destroy any one's love.
is to destroy his very life; for love is life. The life of the Lord was love towards the whole human race, which' was so great, and of such a nature, as
to be nothing but pure love' Against this his life were admitted continual temptations, as already stated, from his earliest childhood to his last hour in the
world. During all this time the Lord was assaulted by all the hells, which
were continually overcome, subjugated, and conquered by him; and this
solely out of love towards the human race. And because this love was not
human but divine, and all temptation is great in proportion as the love is
great; it may be seen how grievous were his combats, and how great the
ferocity with which the hells assailed him. That these things were so I know
of a certainty."-A. C. 1690.'"That the Lord, more than all in the universe, underwent and sustained
most grievous temptations, is not so fully known from the Word, where it is
only mentioned that he was in the wilderness forty days, and was tempted
of the devil. The temptations themselves which he then had, are not described except in a few words; nevertheless these few involve all; as what
is mentioned in Mark, chap. i. 12, 13, that he was with the beasts, by which
are signified the worst of the infernal crew; and what is elsewhere related,
that he was lead by the devil upon a pinnacle of the temple, and upon a high
mountain, which are nothing else but representatives of the most grievous
temptations which he suffered in the wilderness."-A. C. 1663.
The end to be attained by this indispensable process of temptationcombats, accompanied always by victory, was the gradual reduction
of the external man to conformity or correspondence with the internal, and the final union of the Human Essence with the Divine in
the Lord, which is but another name for his glorification.*  The
general principle is thus stated by our author.' Temptations have for their end the subjugation of what is external in man,
that they may thereby be rendered obedient to what is internal; as may appear to any one who reflects, that so soon as manl's loves are assaulted and
broken, as during misfortunes, sickness, and grief of mind, his lusts begin to
subside, and he at the same time begins to talk piously; but as soon as he
returns to his former state, the external man gets the dominion, and he scarcely thinks at all on such subjects. The like happens at the hour of death,
when corporeal things begin to be extinguished; and hence every one may
* "Temptation is the means of the conjunction of the internal man with the external,
inasmuch as they are at disagreement with each other, but are reduced to agreement and
correspondence by temptations."-A. C. 3928.
" The external things that are discordant, which were spoken of above, are the only
things that hinder the external man, when it acts upon the external, from making it one
with itself. The external man is nothing else but an instrumental or organical something, having no life in itself, but receiving life from the internal man, and then it appears as if the external man had life from itself. With the Lord, however, after he had
expelled hereditary evil, and thus had purified the organicals of the Human Essence,
these also received life; so that the Lord; as he was life with respect to the internal man,
became life also with respect to the external man. This is what is signified by glorifi.
cation." —A. C. 1603.




The Glorification.                     101
see what the internal man is, and what the external:and the mode in which
lusts and pleasures, which are of the external man, hinder the Lord's operation by the internal." —A. C. 857.
In the following extract the same view is expanded from a deeper
ground and a strong light shed upon the rationale of the whole subject. The theology of the schools sounds no such depths as those
that are reached by Swedenborg's plummet. The intimation of organic
and recipient vessels in the soul of man into which the influx of life
from the, Lord is received, may, at first blush, outrage your psychology, but I have no hesitation to adduce it, as it is a very natural sequence from the admission which even you yourself would probably
make, that the soul is a substance, and a substance, too, receptive of life
from a Divine source, which it must be unless it have life in itself
independent of the uncreated and self-subsisting life that pertains to
the Lord alone. But if the soul be a substance adapted to the reception of influent life, we see no reason to doubt what Swedenborg has
affirmed, that this substance is organized for that purpose, as we find
throughout the whole domain of vegetable and animal existence that
organizedforms are the fixed receptacles of vital influx. And if this
holds in the lower departments of the universe, why not in the higher?
What is the difficulty of conceiving that there may be spiritual substances duly organized as well as material? Assuming then as a
postulate, what every intelligent receiver of Swedenborg is prepared
argumentatively to maintain, that the human mind is as truly distinguished by recipient vessels as the body is by a cellular tissue, I
transfer the paragraph in question.
"Good cannot be conjoined with truth in the natural man without combats,
or, what is the same, without temptations; that it may be known how the
case is, in respect to man, it may be briefly told; man is nothing else but anl
organ, or vessel which receives life from the Lord, for man does not live from
himself; the life, which flows in with man from the Lord, is from His divine
love; this love, or the life thence, flows in and applies itself to the vessels,
which are ill man's rational, and which are in his natural; these vessels with
man are in a contrary situation in respect to the influent life in consequence
of the hereditary evil.into which man is born, and of the actual evil which he
procures to himself; but as far as the influent life can dispose the vessels
to receive it, so far it does dispose them.         Good itself, which
has life from the Lord, or which is life, is what flows in and disposes; when
therefore these vessels, which are variable as to forms, are in a contrary position and dlirection in respect to the life, as was said, it may be evident that
they must be reduced to a position according to the life, or in compliance
with the life; this can in nowise be effected, so long as man is in that state
into which he is born, and into which hte has reduced himself, for the vessels
are not obedient, being.obstinately repugnant, and opposing with all their
might the heavenly order, according to which the life acts; for the good
which moves them, and with which they comply, is of the love of self and' the
world, which good, from the crass heat which is in it, causes them to be of
such quality; wherefore, before they can be rendered compliant, and be made
fit to receive anythiing of the life of the Lord's love, they must be softened;
this softening is effected by 1io other means than by temptations; for temptations renmove those things which pertain to self-love, and to contempt of others
in comparison with self, consequently things which pertain to self-glory, and
also to hatred and revenge thence arising; when therefore the vessels are




102             Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter X.
somewhat tempered and subdued by temptations, then they begin to become
yielding to, and compliant with the life of the Lord's love, which cont;inally
flows ill with man; hence then it is, that good begins to be conjoined to
truths, first in the rational marl, and afterwards in the natural.
Hence is the reason why man is regenerated, that is, is made new, by temptations, or, what is the same, by spiritual combats, and that he is afterwards gifted
with another temper or disposition, being made mild, humbe; simple, and
contrite in heart: from these considerations it may now appear what use
temptations promote, viz., this, that good from the Lord may not only flowv
in, but may also dispose the vessels to obedience, and thus conjoin itself
with them.... But as to what respects the Lord, he, by the most
grievous temptation-combats, reduced all things in hi mself into divine order,
insomuch that there remained nothinlg at all of the human. which he had
derived from the mother, so that he was liot made new as another man,
but altogether divine; for man, who is made new by regeneration, still
retains in himself an inclination to evil, yea is evil itself, but is withheld from
evil by an influx of the life of the Lord's love, and this by exceedingly strong
power; whereas the Lord entirely cast out every evil which was hereditary
to him ftom the mother, and made himself divine even as to the vessels, that
is, as to truths; that is what in the Word is called glorification." —A. C.
3318.
The bearing of this upon the case of the Lord will not be of difficult
apprehension. Receiving, as he did, a humanity from the mother
tainted from the necessity of its nature with hereditary evil, this element of evil was to be, gradually put away, and a Divine humanity
assumed, in consequence of which, he, in fact, ceased from that time
td be the son of Mary, his infirm human being entirely lost and swallowed up in the Divine.  The former state was that of the Lord's
humiliation, but the latter that of his glorification.'In the former
state, viz., that of humiliation, when he had yet with himself an infirm human, he adored Jehovah as one distinct from himself, and indeed as a servant, for the human is respectively nothing else."-A. C.
2159.
That the prevailing theology of Christendom involves no such view
of a progressive glorification in the Lord is beyond debate.  That
theology maintains that, whatever may have been the change in circumst'ances and state, still the nature of Jesus Christ wats the same
before and after the event termed his glorification.  Accordingly; all
those passages in which the letter represents the Lord as distinct
from the Father, and in which he prays to Him in the hour of his
agony, appear to the mass of Christians as equally applicable to the
Lord sojourning on earth and to the Lord reigning in heaven.  They
do not recognize the fact of his having undergone an inward change
of nature still more marked than anything that occurred in the vicissitudes of his outward lot.  Thus, the dogma of Catholicism has established that Mary is still the mother of our Lord, and the result has
been a glorification of her little short of that ascribed to her Son.
Protestantism, though rejecting the Mariolatry of' the Romanist, is
still equally explicit in recognizing the complete separation between
Jehovah and Jesus.  The Son offers himself a sacrifice to propitiate
the Father; as, otherwise they must hold that God died to propitiate
himself, which is of course absurd.  It holds, moreover, that the Son,




The Glorification.                      103
in virtue of his atoning sacrifice, perpetually intercedes in behalf of
his elect.  He is, therefore, practically regarded as distinct from the
Being with or before whom he intercedes.  How exceedingly diverse
from all this is the view presented bv Swedenborg may be seen from
his statement of the true Scriptural doctrine of Intercession.*
"The Lord's intercession for the humnan race was during his abode in the
world, and indeed during his state of humiliation, for in that state lie spake
with Jehovah as with another; but in the state of glorification, when the human essence became united to the Divine, and was also made Jehovah, he
does not then intercede, but shows mnercy, and from his Divine (principle) administers help and saves; it is mercy itself which is intercession, for such is
its essence." —A. C. 2250.
This view of intercession we hold to result necessarily from the
doctrine of the Divine unity. As there is but one God, and Jesus
Christ is himself that God, we find it as impossible to conceive of his
interceding with himself as of his making an atonement to himself;
and we can admit no requisition upon our faith to acknowledge any
doctrine as divine which clearly conflicts with the fundamental tenet
of the supreme Deity and absolute Unipersonality of Jehovah-Jesus.
Still objections suggest themselves.  If the inmost soul of Jesus was
Jehovah, then the Lord in praying to the Father prayed to his own
soul. Unquestionably he did, on the principle before alluded to, and
which is clearly developed in the two following paragraphs, which I
give at length from the very great importance of the subject-matter
as throwing light upon one of the profoundest arcana of revelation,
to wit, the manner in which the duality of the letter is to be reconciled with the unity of the sense, in what is related of our Lord's intercourse with the Father.
"The internal of the Lord, that is, whatever the Lord received from  the
Father, was Jehovah in himn, because he was conceived of Jehovah. There
is a difference between what man receives from his father, and what he receives fiom his mother. IMan receives from his father all that is internal,
that is, his very soul or life; but he receives from his mother all that is external: in a word, the interior man, or the spirit, is from the lather, but the
exterior man, or the body, is from the mother.  This every one may comprehend merely from this;, that the soul itself is implanted from the father,
which begins to clothe itself with a bodily form in the ovary, and whatsoever
is afterwards added, whether in the ovary or in the.womb, is of the mother,
for it receives no addition from elsewhere.  Hence it may appear, that the
Lord, as to his internals, was Jehovah; but as the external, which he received from the mother, was to be united to the Divine or Jehovah, and this
by temptations and victories, as was said, it must needs appear to him in
those states, when he spake with Jehovah, as if he waS speaking with another,
when, nevertheless, he was speaking with himself; so far, that is, as conjunction was effected." —A. C. 1815.
" That the Lord adored and prayed to Jehovah his Father, is knbcwn from
the Wrord in the Evangelists, and this as if to a Being different from himself,
~ See the subject of our Lord's Intercession treated with consummate ability by Mr.
Noble, in his " Lectures on the Important Doctrines of tihe True ChristianReligion."Lecturtes XVII and XVIII.




104              Lclters to a Trinitarica. —Letter X.
although Jelovah was itn him.  But the state in whviel the Lord then,vas,
was his state of lhumiliatiotn, the quality of vwhich was described ini the First
Part, namely, that he was then in the infirm humian derived from the mother.
But so far as he put off that human, and put on the Divine, he was in a different state, which is called his state of glorification. In the formrer state he
adored Jehovah as a Person different froml himself, although he was in himself; for, as stated above, his internal was Jehovah: bltt in the latter, namely,
the state of glorification, he spake with Jehovah as with himself, for hlie was
Jehovah himself. But how these things are cannot be conceived, unless it be
known what the internal is, and how the internal acts upoin the external: and,
furtlher, how the internal and external are distinct froom  each other, and yet
joiled together. This, however, may be illustrated by its like, namely, by
the internal in man, and its influx into, and operation upon, his external. The
internal of man is that by which man is man, and by which he is distinguished
from brute animals. By this internal he lives after death, and to eternity,;
and by this he is capable of being elevated by the Lord amongst angels: it is
the very first form by virtue of which he becomes, anld is, a man. By this illternal the Lord is united to man. The heaven nearest to the Lord conlsists of
these human ilternals; this, however, is above the inmost angelic heaven;
wherefore these internals are of the Lord himself.  Those internals of mein
have not life in themselves, but are forms recipient of the life of the Lord. In
proportion, then, as man is in evil, whether actual or hereditary, he is as it
were separated from this internal, whic-l is of the Lord and with the Lord,
consequently, is separated from the Lord: for although this internal be adjoined to man, and inseparable from him, still, as far as maln recedes from the
Lord, so far he, as it were, separates himself from it. This separation, hovever, is not an evulsion from it, for man would then be no longer capable of
living after death; but it is a dissent and disagreement of those faculties of
man which are beneath it, that is, of the rational and external man.  In proportion to this dissent and disagreement, there is a disjunction; but in proportion as there is no dissent and disagreemelnt, man is coinjoined by the internal to the Lord; and this is affected in proportion as he is in love and
charity, for love and charity conjoin. Thus it is in respect to man. But the
internal of the Lord was Jehovah Himself, inasmuch as he was conceived of
Jehovah, who cannot be divided and become another's, as the internal of a
son who is conceived of a human father; for the divine is not capable of division, like the htuman, but is one and the same, and is permanent. With this
internal the Lord united the Human Essence; and because the internal of the
Lord was Jehovah, it was not a form recipient of life, as the internal of man
is, but was life itself. His Human Essence also, by union, was in like manler gmade life; wherefore the Lord so often says that he is life; as in John:'As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life ill
himself,' chap. v. 26; besides other passages in the same Evangelist. as chap.
1. 4; v. 21; vi. 33, 35, 48; xi. 25. In proportion, therefore, as the Lord was
in the humana which he received hereditarily from the mnother, he appeared
distinct from Jehovah, and adored Jehovah as one different from himself; but
in proportion as he put off this human, the Lord was not distinct from  Jehovah, but one with him. The former state, as remarked above, was the Lord's
state of humiliation, but the latter was his state of glorification.-"-A. C. 1999.
The same mystery, then, if we may so term it, is to be recognized
in its degree in every man who becomes a subject of regeneration.
This work is carried on by a process of temptation, or, in other words,
of conflict between the flesh and the spirit, equivalent to the external
and internal man.  Just in proportion to the disagreement between
these two principles, the man feels himself possessed, as it were, of a
double personality, the one yielding, the other resisting.
In this state of inward self-divulsion it is not difficult to conceive
of one department of the man's being addressing the other, as we




The Glorification.                     105
find in the case of David; —" Why art thou cast down, 0 my soul,
and why art thou disquieted within me?  Hope thou in God, for I
shall yet praise Him."  The case of Paul, as exhibited in the epistle
to the Romans (Ch. vii.) I have already cited as strikingly illustrative of the grand position. This conscious antagonism of the two
natures becomes less and less as the victories are multiplied over
temptation, for the effect of this is evermore to bring the soul into
harmony and unity with itself, and this is in truth an image in
miniature of the sublime conjunction of the Human and the Divine,
which constituted the glorification of the Lord. As this, however,
was a result accomplished by degrees, as it was the issue of a process extending through the whole term of the Lord's terrestrial life,
and was brought to a consummation by the passion of the cross,
which was the last stage of his temptations-at once his sorest trial
and his crowning triumph —so the conclusion presses upon us, that
the regeneration of man, which is conformed to this exemplar, is not
an instantaneous act but a gradual process.
That the plenary glorification of the Lord was accomplished by
the death on the cross, he himself teaches in John xiii. 31, 32;
" Therefore when he was gone out Jesus said, Now is the Son of man
glorified, and God is glorified in him.  If God be glorified in him
(E amr0), God shall also glorify him  in himself, (v gavrc), and shall
straightway glorify him."  Here the glorification is predicated both
of' God the Father and of God the Son, since God is glorified in him,
and if so, he will glorify him  in himself, clearly evincing that the
glorification was an act of union and identification between the
Father and the Son, in consequence of which the Son was henceforth
to be so merged in the Father that they could no longer be viewed as
in a state of even apparent separation.  This was effected at the
crisis of the crucifixion when the mysterious process reached its
acme; "Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son that thy Son also
inay glorify thee."  The son of Mary is nailed to the cross and suffers the agony of dissolution, and in the article of death the union of
the Divine and Human becomes completed: the man Christ Jesus is
fully identified with the one only God, Jehovah, and hence is he now
known in the New Church by the distinguishing and appropriate
title of THE LORD. At this eventful moment the bonds of his terrestial relationships were severed, the Lord rejected whatever he held
in common with the fallen race of men, and Mary ceased to be his
mother; " Woman, behold thy son," and to the disciple whom he
loved,' Behold thy mother."  These words, in conjunction with what
follows, denote the completed work of glorification: "After this,
Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the
scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst —and when he had received
the vinegar he said, IT IS FINISHED: and he bowed his head and gave
up the ghost."*
* "WVhen the Lord said,'It is finished,' all was accomplished that can properly be
called Glorification, as answering to rman's reregeeration, for ttie Resurrection, prlolerly
speaking, was no part of the Glorification (any more than man's resurrection is a part of
his regeneration), but only a result fiorn it, or manifestation of it, as previously accomplishect."-(l/lason's Answer to Eight qzestions, p. 54.)




106               Letters to a Trinitarian. —Letter X.
The Lord, however, was not to be- holden of the bonds of the
grave; he therefore arose and appeared to his disciples in such a
measure of his glory as they were able to bear, while his body in
outward semblance bore the aspect of the body of the son of Mary
which hung upon the cross and rested in the tomb of Joseph.  "Behold," said he to his disciples, "behold my hands and my feet, that it
is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones
as ye see me have."  As if for confirmation, Thomas was allowed to
put his fingers into the prints of the nails, and subsequently the Lord
sat down with his disciples to a meal of broiled fish and honeycomb.
These are the passages on which the christian church relies, in
teaching that our Lord was entirely the same before his death and
after his resurrection. But it is obvious that the body with which he
rose was divested of material properties, as it enabled him to enter a
room with closed doors and to appear and disappear at pleasure to
the view of his disciples.  He was, therefore, at this time in a glorified body because in a glorified state; but in what precise manner
this body was divested of sensible material properties, and emancipated from its liability to the laws of the natural world, is doubtless beyond the ken of mortal apprehension. I am as much at liberty
to call upon you for explanation on this score as you upon me.  We
must both admit that an immense change took place in the properties
of the body, and yet that the personal likeness, as witnessed by the
disciples, remained unchanged.  W4Ve, however, are taught —what
you would be also if you could receive it —that the post-resurrection
appearances of the Lord were not perceived by the natural but by
the spiritual senses of the spectators, just as we suppose that the
body of the transfiguration, which shone as the sun, was seen by interior and not by exterior vision.
The mystery of our Lord's glorification is dimly shadowed out in
the process which takes place in ourselves.  The soul during its sojourn in the body makes use of it as a vestment and an instrument.
Every day and every hour it is laying aside the old and assuming
new substances.  The life on earth is an incessant death and an incessant resurrection.  The body of the child is not, as to substance,
identically one with that of the adult man, nor that of the adult man
with that of the old man.  Howv then can we maintain that precisely
the same material body will arise, when the same flesh is not, for a
single day, subject to the same soul?  By this analogy we nmay comprehend the sublime process of our Lord's glorification, as far as it
is given to the finite of man to grasp the infinite of God."
* The following extract from the Lectures of Rev. B. F. Barrett presents a pertinent
but still inadequate view of the subject, by means of a striking illustration. As otur arguimentative scope is substantially the same, it serves both our purposes enually
well.
" Our conception of this divine operation may perhaps be soimewhat ai(led if we reflect upon how the case is in that natural phenomenon whichl is called petrifaction-a.
process by which wood or any other organic substance is changed to stone. As often as
a p)larticle of the orgpanized substance which undergoes this operation is removed, a particle of mineral or silicious rmatter comnes in and takes its place. And thus, when the
process is completed, the substance of the wood has all been removed, and replaced by




The Atonement.                           107
The Lord, however, successively laid aside the substances received
from the virgin mother, not to borrow and substitute for them  new
material substances, but to put on in their stead the spiritual substances of his Divine Humanity, such as it appeared, by anticipation,
to Peter, James, and John, on the hallowed mount of transfiguration.
The completion of this process was the consummated union or unition of the Human with the Divine Essence. in virtue of which the
Lord is now able to put forth a redeeming and saving power towards
our lost race which would otherwise have been for ever impossible
consistently w ith those laws of order from which the Most High cannot depart without denying his own nature.  But upon this point I
propose to dwell more at length in another letter.
Yours, &c.
LETTER XI.
TI-IE ATONEMENT.
DEAR SIRt,'PURSUANT to previous intimations, I propose to devote the present
letter to the suhjlin'ct of the At'onement.  It-s intimate connection with
the general theme thus far treated is obvious at a glance.  It is the
exigency in which Atonement is supposed to originate that brings so
prominently into view, and renders so indispensable, the threefold
distinction of persons which is held to constitute the true doctrine of'
the Trinity. The essential element in the prevailing theory of the
Atonement is that of vicarious sacrifice or substituted suffering, and
this doctrine of satisfaction obviously rests upon the assumed tenet
of the  tripersonality  of Jehovah, inasmuch  as it is held  to be
ofered by one of these persons to the other and the essential divinity
of the offerer is what gives its redeeming  efficacy to the offering.  On
the ba, sis of the prevailing scheme of Atonement, the Trinity of persons in the Godhead is an equally indispensable element with the
Divinity  itself.  The law which had been violated by sin was so infinitely pure and so sternly inexorable, and the ability of the sinner
to fulfil its demands had become so completely prostrated and extinct, that nothing short of the intervention  of the second person of
the triune Godhead could avail to propitiate the clemency of the Fam11ineral matter; yet so gradual has this process been, that the form a-nd organic strctetrea
of the wood ihas been complletely )preserved. And so perlectly is this the case, that it appears as if the wood had been chz,rgged to stone. Something  sirmilar to this is also takingr
place continually in onor bodies. Ptrticles are constantly passing off, and their plage is
supplied by new ones; yet the forim and organic structure of our bodies is still preserved.
— (Barrett's Lectures, p. 307).
In the eightlh of Nloble's Lectures the reader will find the subject here alluded to treated
with distinguislhed ability.




108           Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XI.
ther, vindicate his injured justice, and open the way for the bestowment of pardon, peace, and eternal life upon the guilty. In the executlion of this merciful purpose he came fully into our place as a
fulfiller of the violated law, and by his perfect obedience and unparalleled sufferings wrought out and brought in an everlasting
righteousness, the merit of which is made over by imputation to the
believer who receives the Divine testimony, and with a strong confidence appropriates to himself the proffered grace. As the grand
virtue of the Redeemer's work is concentrated in his passion on the
cross, or in the blood shed on that occasion, so it is an act of faith
put forth in a special manner upon the efficacy of this blood that
constitutes the genuine ground of the believer's justification in the
sight of God. In this way he receives the full benefit of a gratuitous
salvation, while the law, that brooks no infraction, is magnified and
made honorable in the eyes of its Author and of the whole universe.
There are various other items comprised in this peculiar scheme of
theology, to which I have not adverted, although they enter essentially into the integrity of the system  considered as a whole; such,
for instance as the doctrine of election, of perseverance, and of instantaneous regeneration, to which we may add the dogma respecting the Divine Anger. It is all along assumed as a postulate that
indignation and wrath, in the most genuine sense of the terms, pertain to the Most High, and that without the placating or propitiating
of the Divine wrath, the exercise of his saving love towards sinful men
is effectually estopped and can only find vent for itself in the channel
opened by the shedding of the blood of Christ upon the cross. The
effect of this sacrifice of the Son of God, it is contended, is to quench
the burning flames of the Father's anger, and to remove that moral
disability under which he was laid by the law of his perfections on
the score of the bestowment of pardon and eternal life upon fallen
creatures. This atoning blood, however, has been shed, its efficacy
acknowledged by Him to whom it was offered, and now its priceless
benefits are to be appropriated by an act of faith in virtue of' which
the believer may repose peacefully in the confidence of salvation.
There is indeed no real righteousness or merit in such a faith, yet it
is imputed to him for righteousness, and on the ground of it he may
safely count upon being able to stand with acceptance before the
Lord in the day of final audit.
It would, doubtless, be doing injustice to the system under consideration, to say, that it makes no account of a good life, or that it does
not, in some sense, provide for it and insist upon it. Bad as human
nature is, and liable to be warped into the grossest falsities of persuasion, there is still a deep-seated and ineradicable conviction abidihog in its bosom, that the essence of religion is in the life-that a
man who lives well is a religious man, and that a man who lives ill
is an irreligious man.  This is confirmed by the express declaration
of holy writ, that the sum and substance of all religion-the conclusion of the whole matter-is to fear God and keep his commandments.
It is hardly possible for any form of creed or confession to plant itself
in the belief of Christendom, in which life does not enter as an av\ow



The Atonement.                        109
ed element, and as holding a prominent place, and yet I think it obvious that the basis for this doctrine in the present scheme is a very
slender one, and that it involves a complete inversion of the true order
by which life is made to result from principles. Upon this point I
shall dwell more at length by and by. At present, I would simply
advert to the fact, which cannot but be admitted as a marked feature
of the scheme, that no previous change of character is requisite in
order to the appropriation of all the promises of the Gospel, provided
there is the exercise of a fiducial trust in the divine assurances, so
that if the sinner, at the last hour of life, puts forth a vigorous act
oC faith, his former iniquities are all canceled, and he comes at once
into the full privileges and prerogatives of a state of grace. As the
vital act of faith is put forth at once, and'this act is the essence of
regeneration, it follows that regeneration is instantaneous; and as
regeneration is the grand requisite to salvation, while to the former
nothing is requisite but faith, it is obvious that the demands of a holy
life are practically all but annulled in the vicarious scheme of atonement. The legitimate results of the system are thus propounded by
Swedenborg:" The modern faith is, that it is to be believed, that God the Father sent His
Soil, who suffered upon the cross for our sins, and took away the curse of the
law by the fulfilment thereof, and that this faith without good works will save
every one, even in the last hour of death: by this faith impressed from childhood, and afterwards confirmed by preachings, it has come to pass, that no
one flees from evils from a. principle of religion, but only from a civil and
moral law, thus not because they are sins, but because they are hurtful: consider now, whilst man thinks that the Lord suffered for our sins, that He took
away the curse of the law, and that to believe those things, or that the faith
of those things alone, without good works, saves, whether all the precepts of
the decalogue are not lightly esteemed, and all the life of the religion prescribed
in the Word, and moreover all the truths which teach charity; separate therefore these, and remove them from  man, and say whether there appertains to
him any religion; for religion does not consist in only thinking this or that,
but in willing and doing that which is thought, and there is no religion when
willing and doing are separated from thinking: hence it follows, that by the
modern faith, spiritual life, wvlich is the life of the angels of heaven, and the
essential Christian life, is destroyed."-A. E. 902.
I am not conscious of having, in the above sketch, exaggerated or
misrepresented the leading features of the theory of atonement upon
which I am commenting.  It surely is not necessary to invest it with
any factitious enormities in order to intensify its repulsiveness to every
right mind.  Such an effect, however, will be more likely to follow
from arraying it somewhat directly in contrast with what we believe
to be the genuine doctrine of the Word on this subject. This doctrine we find embodied in the theology of the New Church, and the
sequel will show the strong points of contrariety between the two.
And, first of all, this divine theology teaches that there is no real
anger or wrath in the Deity. All those forms of speech which, viewed in the letter, would seem to imply this, are the language of appearances, and not of genuine truth as it is apprehended in heaven.  The
Lord is essential love, and love is inconsistent with wrath.  The vir



110            Letters to a Trinitarian. — Letter XI.
tual assertion of anger as a quality of the divine mind is founded upon
the sensible effect produced by the contrariety between the state of
the man in evil and the Divine affection, which conveys to him  the
impression of the Lord's being moved by wrathful emotions towards
him. So to an inflamed condition of the eyes, the sun's light is painful, and a vague impression' is produced of some kind of antagonism
between the grand luminary of day and the organ of vision, whereas
it is wholly to a diseased state of the organ that this impression is
owing, as the light of the sun is always genial and pleasant to the
healthy eye.  The language of the Scripture in all those passages
which ascribe irascible passions to the Deity is but giving a name to
the appeearance instead of the reaility; just as when it is said, in reference to the apparent motion of contiguous objects beheld from a'railroad car in rapid transit, that theyfly past one with ewinged speed.
"That Jehovah has not any anger, is evident from this, that He is love itself,
good itself, and mercy itself, and anger is the opposite, and also is an infirm
principle, which cannot be imputed to God: wherefore when anger in the
Word is predicated of Jehovah or the Lord, the angels do not perceive anger,
but either mercy, or the removal of evil from heaven.     That anger
in the Word is attributed to Jehovah or the Lord, is because it is a most
general truth, that all things come from God, thus both evils and goods; but
this most general truth, which infants, young people, and the simple, must receive, ought afterwards to be illustrated, namely, by teaching that evils are
from man, bat that they appear as from God. and that it is so said, to the intent
they Imay learn to fear God, lest they should perish by the evils which thlelnselves do; and afterwards may love Him, for fear must precede love. that in
love there may be holy fear; for when fear is insinuated into love, it becomes
holy from the holy of love, and then it is not fear lest the& Lord should be angry and punish, but lest they should act against good itself, because this will
torment the conscience.         The reason why by anger is meant clemency and mercy, is because all the punishmients of the evil exist from the
Lord's mercy towards the good, lest these latter should be hurt by the evil;
but the Lord does not inflict punishments upon them, but they upon thenmselves, for evils and punishments in the other life are conjoined. The evil inflict punishments on themselves principally, when the Lord does mercy to the
good, for then their evils increase, and thence punishments; it is fromn this
ground that instead of the anger of Jehovah, by which are signified the punishments of the evil, mercy is understood by the angels. From these considerations it may be manifest, what the quality of the Word is in the sense of the
letter, also what the quality of the truth divine is in its most general sense or
meaning, namely, that it is according to appearances, by reasotl that man is
of such a quality, that when, he sees and apprehends from his sensual, he believes, and what he does not see, neither apprehend from his sensual, he does
not believe, thus does not receive. Hence it is, that the Word in the sense of
the letter is according to those things which appear; nevertheless in its interior bosom it contains a store of genuine truths, and in its inmost bosom truth
divine itself. which proceeds immediately from the Lord, thais also divine
good, that is the Lord Himself."-A. C. 6997.: I have conversed with good spirits, that many things in the Word, and
more than any one could believe. are spoken according to appearances, and
according to the fallacies of the senses; as that Jehovah is in wrath, anger,
and fury, against the wicked, that he rejoices to destroy them and blot them
out, yea, that he slays them. But these modes of speaking were used, that
persuasions and lusts might not be brolen, but might be bent: for to speak
otherwise t}-an man conceives, which is from appearances, fallacies, and per



The Atonement.                         311
slyi'1ons, would have been to sow seed in the water, and to speak what would
inr.taLntly be rejected. Nevertheless, those things may serve as common vessels for the containing of things spiritual and celestial, since it may be insinuated into them, that all things are from the Lord: afterwards, that the Lord
permits, but that all evil is from diabolical spirits; next, that the Lord provides
and disposes, that evils may be turned into goods; lastly, that nothing but
good is from the Lord. Thus the sense of the letter perishes as it ascends, and
becomes spiritual, afterwards celestial, and lastly divine." —A. C. 1874.
The prevailing tenet is, of course, opposed to Swedenborg's statement on this head.  It acknowledges no such distinction between real
and appareant truth.  The Divine mind would have been eternally the
seat of inexorable wrath towards the race of men had not Christ Jesus
interposed in their behalf, and by his voluntary oblation of himself,' changed the wrath to grace." But we find, in this view of the subject, a
difficulty insuperable. While it is denied that the Divine love could be
exercised towards fallen man without an atoning sacrifice, yet this very
love provided the sacrifice in the first instance. Jesus Christ is the free
gift of-God. He provided the ransom. "God so loved the world that he
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life."  We are then constrained to
ask how it is, that if God the Father was relentlessly angry with the
human race, he did not previously require to be pacified before he
thought of thus providing the requisite satisfaction?  This is a question which we believe to be unanswerable on the accredited theory
of atonement. To say that Christ satisfied the justice of God, at the
same time that the satisfaction was of God's own procuring, is the
same as to say, that one who is indebted, to a large amount, to another, discharges the debt by money given him out of the creditor's
own pocket.  Or, to vary the illustration, suppose a poor man-one
so utterly impoverished as to be unable to refund a penny —deeply
in debt to a rich man who insists upon the liquidation of his claim.
Aware, however, of the circumstances of his debtor, and disposed to
aid him in an emergency, while keeping up the form of exact dealing, he brings forward his own son as surety for the poor man, and
yet himself supplies that son with all the pecuniary resources that
enable him to stand good for the demand.  Is it not clear that the
creditor becomes, after all, his own surety?  And what real satisfaction is there in all this?  Is it not palpably a feint, a simulation, a
mockery? Is the debtor any more a real object of favor after such a
quasi or ideal satisfaction than he was before?  So much, then, for
a theory of atonement built upon the assumption of positive wrath
existing in the bosom of Deity.
But is it to be inferred from this that the salvation of men could
have been as easily compassed without the mediation of Christ as
with it?  Was the incarnation, life, works, sufferings, and death of
the Son of God an empty and useless expenditure of the Divine
mercy? Far from it. It was a procedure of absolute and indispensable necessity; not however as a vicarious or propitiatory sacrificenot as a vindication of the honor of a law which sinful man had
broken —but as the only possible medium of effecting renewedly that




112           Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XI.
conjunction with the Divine nature in which stands the happiness of
every created soul and which had been violently disrupted and sundered by sin. This we are taught to regard as the very essential
element of atonement, as it is the genuine signification of the original
word (KaraXXay7, katallage,) thus rendered, which you are aware has
in its genuine sense the import of reconciliation. I am well aware,
however, that this view of the subject, which represents the essence
of all true religion to lie in conjunction with the Divine, is one which
the advocates of the popular theology invariably disrelish and shun.
They do not like the term because they do not like the thing. It militates directly with their dominant and favorite notions of the legal
and governmental character of the transaction. Their views of atonement involve so much of a forensic element-they are built upon
such inveterate preconceptions respecting the dignity and sanctity of
an outward or objective law-a law which must be fulfilled, although
man has lost his power to fulfil it-that they seem utterly incapable
of entertaining the idea of union or conjunction with the Divine Being as the very essence of heaven, and consequently of salvation.
The term, therefore, is a suspected and discarded term, as it is intuitively seen to be completely at war with their chosen hypothesis of
an atonement effected by the Saviour's plenary satisfaction of the
demands of a violated law.
Now the man of the New Church goes deeper than all this. He
recognizes an inward law more primary, organic, and fundamental
than any outward law or code could be, though written on tables of'
stone by the Divine finger itself. He looks down into the law of his
own nature. He sees that the evil consequent upon his apostacy is
an evil that has seized upon the inmost vitalities of his being, which
must of necessity work out the most deplorable miseries unless they
are reached in their fountain-head by the appropriate remedy. He
sees no process by which a putative transfer of righteousness can
avail to eradicate the deep sin-stain which has struck into the very
core of his moral life. He perceives also a fundamental fallacy in the
very first conception of the fulfilling of law on the part of man-the
conception, to wit, that man, in his integrity, had an inward power
of perfect obedience, which he has lost by the fall, and that consequently a necessity has arisen for the obedience of a substitute, who
should perfectly fulfil its utmost requirements, while the fruits of this
obedience are made to redound to the benefit of the delinquent. Instructed in the deeper theology of the New Church, such an one perceives, that, from the very nature of dependent life, neither man in
innocence, nor the highest angel in glory, has one particle of selfpotency from which to obey law or to do good. From the fact that his
being-his esse-is derived, his power of doing anything good is derived
also, and Adam in Eden was no more competent, in himself considered, or by his own ability, to keep the law of the Decalogue than the
lowest devil of the pit.-  Consequently, every assumption which in* "It is of divine order that man should act from freedom, since to act from freedom
according to reason is to act of himself. Nevertheless, these two faculties, FREEDO. allud
REASON, are not man's own, but are the Lord's within him; and so far as he is man, they




The Atonement.                             113'volves the opposite view  is founded upon a central fallacy which
will vitiate the whole system throughout. The idea that Christ's
mediation was founded on the demands of an outward law which
man had lost the power to fulfil, is inevitably false, because he never
did and never could possess such a power.
How then was man's redemption from the power of evil, i. e. from
the power of hell, to be elffected, and what was the precise nature
and end of that intervention of God incarnate which is everywhere
held forth in the Scriptures as so indispensable to the compassing of
the objects of the Divine beneficence?  The answer to this question
will obviously be determined, on my part, by the tenor of the whole
foregoing series of letters.  If I have at all succeeded in establishing
my main position in regard to the Divine unity, or, irn other words, in
regard to the absolute identity of Jehovah  and Jesus, that peculiar
aspect of the doctrine which represents the atonement as a satisfaction or expiation offered by the second person of the Godhead to the
first, the virtue of which was especially concentrated in the death of
the cross, cannot possibly be just. The fact that the whole Trinity
is to be recognized in the one person of the Lord the Saviour, for ever
bars the supposition that an  atoning sacrifice should be any more
required to be offered to the Father than to the Son. As their nature
and personality are one and the same, the moral demands made by the
perfections of each are also the same. On this ground, therefore, I feel
abundantly authorized to say what the end of the Saviour's mission
was not-that it was not to make a vicarious atonement for sin-and
the statement of a negative often helps us directly to the establishment of an affirmative.  In the present case there surely cannot be
many alternatives.  If the work of Christ was not expiatory, what remains to conclude respecting it but that it was simply salvatory?
The fact that in Christ was not merely one person of the Trinity, but
the whole Trinity, or, in other words, that he was the one, supreme,
and absolute Jehovah, clothed with humanity, cannot but enforce
upon us the conclusion, that the end of the incarnation was in some.way to restore us back to that saving conjunction with Himself from
which we had so rashly torn ourselves away.  The more fully we
can divest ourselves of the idea of Christ as a third person or party
are not taken away fromr him, inasmuch as without them he could not be reformred; for
he could not do the work of repentance; he could not fight against evils, and afterwards
bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. Now since freedom and reasoo are with man
from the Lord, and man acts from them, it follows that he does not act of himself; but as
of hiinself" —Doct. of Life of N. J. 101.
" Aan catnot think any thing, or will any thing from himself. Every thing which ho
thinks and wills, flows into hi from the spiritual world; good and truth from the Lord
through heaven, thus through the angels who are attendant on man, and thus into man's
thouLgit arnd will. There is not any man, spirit, or angel, who in any case hath life from
himsel, thus neither can he think and will from himself; for man's life consists in thinking and wvilling, while sp eaking ann acting is the life thence derived. For there is only
one lifi, n tmlely, the Lord's, which flows in into all, but is variously received, according
to thie qul tlity which man ihas by his life induced upon his soul."-A. C. 5846, 5847.' Th cIase with man as to his affections and as to his thoughts, is this, no person
wla:so,)cver, whethler man, or spirit, or angel, can wvill and think from himself, but only
froirl ctflers; nor can these others will and think from themselves, but all again from
others, anti so forth, and thus each from the first source or principle of life which is the
Lord; tliat.which is unconnected doth rinot exist."-A. C 2SS6.
8




114          Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XI.
mediating between God and us, and distinct from both, so much the
more nearly shall we approximate to the true view of his entire redrmption or salvation work. He acts, or acted as Mediator, indeed, but
thesa the mediatorial function pertained solely and exclusively to the Human which was assumed, and not the Divine which assumed it. This
Divine we are evermore to regard as being the essential Jehovah
himself. When we realize, therefore, that there is no other God in
the universe than He who is to be recognized in Christ-no Divine
Father beyond or out of the Son —the inference would seem to be
irresistible that the action of the infinite love in our recovery from sin
and death puts itself forth irrespective of any propitiatory measure
designed to remove obstacles in the way of-its exercise. It will not
suffice to reply to this, that the whole drift of the apostolic representations, confirmed by the peculiar genius of the typical ritual of the
Jews, speak continually the language of vicarious oblation; for the
question first of all to be determined is, whether Jesus Christ be
intrinsically Jehovah God-the point which I have been laboring
throughout. If he be, then I take the ground without hesitation that
the sustaining of such an office by our Lord is a downright impossibility, and, consequently, that some other interpretation must be put
upon the scriptural language in which it is spoken of.
But you will still remind me that I have not yet distinctly propounded the precise grounds on which the incarnation of Jehovah
became necessary or the exact mode in which it becomes available
to our salvation. The true response flows legitimately from what I
have hitherto advanced on the general subject. Man had broken the
bond of connection which allied him to the beatific source of his
being. He had done this in the perverted exercise of his freedom as
man, and in so doing had thrown himself within the disastrous
sphere of infernal influences from which, unless he were liberated,
he must inevitably perish. But in this liberating process, the freedom of man and the freedom of evil spirits must be sacredly preserved, for this is that peculium of the rational nature which Jehovah
guards as the apple of his eye. Neither in time nor in eternityneither in heaven nor in hell-does he ever suffer this gem of the
soul to be touched with the finger of violence or constraint, as such
a thing would be to extinguish the very principle of humanity in
man. The first step, then, in the recovering work of Heaven's mercy
was the breaking of the bondage of evil into which man had fallenthe disanulling of that covenant with death and that agreement with
hell into which he had so rashly entered. This could only be effected by subjugating the powers of hell, and the agency by which
this was to be brought about must necessarily be such as to be consistent with the essential freedom of the enemies to be subdued, for
the All-Wise never deals with his creatures as a potter would with
vessels that so displeased him in the making as to prompt him to dash
them in pieces. He never treats men as machines. He pays respect
to the high moral nature he has given them, even when that nature
i's grievously abused. The end, therefore, at which his boundless
benevolence aimed could not be attained if they were to be dealt with




The Atonement.                    115
by the direct putting forth of the Divine power towards them. Before
the naked arm of Omnipotence they could not stand for a moment.
It was not, therefore, in the way of Omnipotence that infinite Wisdom
deemed it meet to engage with the infernal hosts, since this could not
be done but in total disregard of their moral nature. They were to
be met upon their own plane. Jehovah must in some way come down
to their level, and yet it would be impossible that he should do this
without instantaneously consuming them, unless he approached them
through a medium, and that medium, we learn, was the assumed Humanity.  Veiling the consuming ardor of his infinite love under
this investment, he could come in contact with man's spiritual foes.
Devoid of the Humanity thus put on, it would have been impossible
for him to have admitted into himself the temptations, the fierce and
direful assaults, of the infernal legions, as the pure Divine is infinitely
removed bevond the reach of their infestations. Yet, unless he had
been assailed in every possible way by the utmost malignity of the
hells, he could not have subdued them, and thus could not have glorified his Humanity, or have " atoned, or reconciled the world to himself,"
that is, could not have accomplished the work of redemption. This,
however, he has accomplished, and it is in virtue of his glorious victories in this behalf that he has removed the grand obstacles that
stood in the way of man's recovering himself by repentance and a
new life of love and faith. There now perpetually flows forth from
the glorified and Divine Humanity of the Lord, a sphere of quickening spiritual life which is capable of resuscitating those who were
previously dead in trespasses and sins. Operating through his Divine Word, which is but another name for his Divine Truth, he draws
the souls of men to himself, as the central sun might be supposed to
draw back to itself, by an augmented power of attraction, a planet
that had wandered out of its orbit. This is atonement in its true interior
sense, which is that of reconciliation or renewed conjunction; in a
word, it is at-one-ment. And it is ever to be borne in mind that all
this is the work of the one, absolute Jehovah, existing, loving, and
acting in one person made Immanuel, God with us, by the wondrous
fact of incarnation. The whole theme is totally misconceived the
moment we fix our thoughts upon what is termed the second person
of the Trinity going through this process in obedience to the will, in
vindication of the justice, and in the display of the glory, of the first.
Unquestionably to human view a great mystery must, on any solution; hang round an event so stupendous as the incarnation of a God.
It is a mystery ineffably profound how the Divine could pass "from
first principles to last," embodying his pure essence in the ultimates
of our gross and fallen humanity. But however mysterious, the fact
has to be admitted. No one can fairly reject it who believes, as you
undoubtedly do, that "the Word which was with God and was God,
became flesh and dwelt among us."  This transcendant fact stands
revealed on the very threshold, as it were, of the Christian oracles,
and in this fact, in its interior import, we read the genuine doctrine
both of Atonement and Redemption, the former the issue of the latter. It is here that we find an adequate clew to that wonder of won



116           Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XI.
ders, the Glorification —an internal process constituting the very heart
and core of the Saviour's mediatorial life, and which is vet as comrletely ignored in the prevailing schemes of atonement, as though it
ad never taken place. These theories take no note of any such hidden process or progress in our Lord's interior state during his sojourn
on earth. The evangelic record that he was born an infant, that he
advanced to childhood, that he increased in stature anid wisdom, that
he became a mnan of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and that he
finally died a painful and humiliating death on the.cross, is of course
admitted, and this is substantially the history of his mere external
man. But prior to the revelations of the New Church, who of'the
advocates of the modern theories of atonement had ever obtained a
gli-npse of that inner world of mysterious experience, in which lay
the germ of earth's redemption? It is evermore this view of our Lord
which is most prominent in the mind of a New Churchman. He
looks incomparably more at what he was in his inner life than at
what-he did in his outer works. He knows of no other atonement
than that which consists in the actual reconciliation of the human of
man to the Divine of Jehovah, for it was in this that the glorification
of Jesus consisted, and in this he sees the prototype of his own regeneration.
Such then is the view which we are taught by Swedenborg to entertain of the subject before us. The end of the incarnation was not
to satisfy law or glorify justice, in the outward or forensic relations
of either.  Divine law can never fail to satisfy itself, either in the
cordial obedience rendered it, or by the punishment inseparably annexed to violation. The end for which the Lord assumed the Human, was to provide a medium through which the saving Divine influx might reach us. This influx may be compared to that of the
light. If a dense cloud intervene, the luminous ethercannot reach
and penetrate the dark places that need illumination. Let the cloud
be removed and the light finds its way to the regions and recesses
which it could not visit before. Thus the mediatorial agency of the
Son of God, which is the Divine Human, is to remove the obstructing
cloud, and give access to the rays of light, while at the same time
it affords a medium by which the rays of the Divine heat shall be so
tempered as not to consume its objects. The great error in theology
we conceive to have been in losing sight of the atonement as an actual re-uniting, or putting at one, opposing parties, and interpreting
the term as expressive solely of the propitiatory or pacificating work
on which the actual union or reconciliation is supposed to rest, This
propitiation, moreover, is supposed, by a large portion of the Christian
world, to involve a designation of the particular objects to whom it;
shall be applied, and who are determined by a so-called decree of
election. From this designation it is usually understood that the
heathen are excluded, being shut up under the ban of reprobation.
Every one feels indeed the pressure of the problem on this score,
but as it is the inevitable logical result of the theory advocated,
its upholders sit down silent, if not quiet, under the oppressive burden
of doubt which it imposes. While they shudder at the thought of such




TbcQG A tohmeYrterz.            117
tremendously preponderating masses-of the race sinking into the yawning abyss of an eternal hell, the authority of the dogma still schools
the impulses of their hearts into acquiescence with the dread result.
On the principles of the New Church this difficulty disappears. We
are taught by them that as the divine influence is not confined to the
understanding, but flows into the affections, so those among the heathen who live a good life according to the dictates of their religion,
are saved to the measure of their capacity, and in the other life receive such instructions from the angels as shall bring them to the acknowledgment of the truths that are in accordance with their good.
The nature of the influx now' descending from the Lord in his glorified state, is such as to dispense with the absolute necessity qf the
written Word as the medium of' salvation. The Word is indeed of
pre-eminent value to those who possess it, as being the grand vehicle
of the Divine Truth, and the instrumental means of conjunction with
heaven; but the virtue of the Lord's incarnation and redemption
reaches the wills of men where the light of revelation does not reach
their understandings, and spiritual life has its seat in the will rather
than in the intellect.  This position, however, no more enforces the
inference that all the heathen are saved, than we are to infer that
such influences in Christian lands are available to the salvation of
all who enjoy them. Man is universally left to the freedom of his
own will. Heaven is notforced upon any one, whether Christian or
Pagnn, Jew or Gentile, Barbarian or Scythian, bond or free.
But the bearing of this and of every Christian doctrine upon life is
after all the grand test. Tried by this standard we do not see how
the inference can be avoided, that the system which we have above
set forth, as held by the mass of the Protestant Church, is to be pronounced wanting. It is clear beyond dispute that its requisitions are
made mainly on faith and not on love or life; but -faith pertains primarily to the understanding, while love is referable to the heart or
will  Now the life is invariably the expression of the love, and not
of the intellect. Whatever a man loves supremely, that he will act
out and ultimate in his life. But what is the scope of love on the
scheme presented? It is at best but the love of gratitude. Its language is: —" The Lord has been so unspeakably kind and merciful
as to touch my hard heart with the finger of his love, and to write
me, against all my deserts, an heir of heaven; and shall I not, therefore, henceforth direct towards him the full ardor of my renovated
affections?" I would not, be it observed, speak disparagingly of love
on this score, in itself considered, but who would not say that
there is a. higher form of love than gratitude? A man who has
generously risked his life to save another from drowning or from the
hands of pirates, may be held in grateful and affectionate remembrance
for so noble and benevolent an act; but he surely would not prize this
form of love as he would that which fixed itself upon him for his own
sake —for the various moral qualities calculated to engage affection.
So in regard to the I)ivine Being. He is in himself, without relation
to us, infinitely lovely, and it is upon this character mainly that all
genuine love fixes.




118            Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XI.
Now this we affirm to be the distinguishing principle of the New
Church.  Its very essence is love to the Lord, and love to thhe neighbor, and it is the restoration of this love that was the object and aim
of the incarnation and atonement.  And as love is the fulfilling of
the law, we take the precepts of the Decalogue as the great rule of
life, and without, in some good degree, keeping these commandments
we know there is no such thing as entering into life.  We repudiate
altogether a species of faith which is a supersedeas to good works,
and the legitimate operation of which is described in the following
extract.
I"Let every one therefore beware of this heresy, that man is justified by
faith without the works of the law, for he who is in it, and does not fully recede from it before his life's end, after death associates with infernal genii;
for they are -the goats, of whom the Lord says,' Depart frotn Me, ye cursed, into
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. xxv. 41); for of
the goats the Lord does not say that they did evil, but that they did not do
good; the reason why they did not do good is, because they say to themselves,'I cannot do good from myself, the law does not condemn me, the
blood of Christ cleanses me and delivers me, the passion of the cross has
taken away the sentence of sin, the merit of Christ is imputed to me through
faith, I am reconciled to the Father, am under grace, am regarded as a son,
and our sins He reputes as infirmities, which tle instantly forgives for the
sake of His Son, thus does He justify by faith alone, and unless this was the
sole medium of salvation, no mortal could be saved, for what other end did
the Son of God staffer on the cross. and fulfil the law, but to remove the sentence of condemnation for our transgressions 3'  Thus do they reason with
themselves, and in consequence thereof do not do any good which is good in
itself, for out of their faith alone, which is nothing but a faith of inowledges,
in itself historical faith, consequently nothing but science, no good works
proceed for it is a dead faith, into which no life and soul enters, unless a
man immediately approaches the Lord, and shuns evils as sins as of himself,
in which case tile good which le does as of himself, is from the Lord, and
consequently is good in itself; on which subject it is thus written, in Isaiah:' Wo unto the sinful nation, laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers, children
that are corrupted; when ye spread forth your hands, I hide mine eyes froim
you, even though ye multiply prayers I hear not: \wash you, makle you
clean, remove the evil of your works from before mine eyes, cease to do evil,
learn to do good: then, though your sills be as scarlet, they shall be as white
as snow; though they be red like purple, they shall be as wool' (i. 4, 15, 16,
17, 18)" —A. E. 1250.
But how, on the other hand, must the Decalogue be regarded by
those who rely solely on faith as the ground of their salvation? In
the nature of the case they must look upon it as a very ancient and
venerable document, given, as to the letter and form, some three or
four thousand years ago, in very solemn circumstances, though it
had existed in fact from  the 1beginning, and which was as really
broken in its spirit by our father Adam, as it was in its tables of
stone by Moses, and which we can no more keep than we ban now
journey to Mount Sinai and gather up the sacred fragments into
which it was shivered by the pious zeal of the leader of Israel.  Consequently the works of obedience to that law have virtually no more
demand upon us as believers in Christ.  We have come out from
under it, and as we are not to be judged by it, its demands are essen



The Atonement.                      119
tially vacated and abrogated in regard to us. It will be seen accordingly that by the advocates of the solifidian theory, all those passages which are found in the Gospels insisting upon works, are
strangely overlooked. They do not see them. However palpable to
others, they do not come within the field of their vision. As Cowper
says;"The text that suits not to his darling whim,
Though clear to others, is obscure to him."
Why is it, otherwise, that such perpetual reference is made to
texts that speak of believing in Christ? We are indeed to believe in
him, not however, as a ground of exemption from the fulfilment of
the law, but as a medium of ability for fulfilling the law. If we
have recourse to his own words in cases where he answered inquiries
as to the terms of salvation, we shall by no means find that his
answer was uniformly to believe in him as the very first and paramount dutv. In some instances he commands the selling of one's
goods, of parting with all to the poor, and coming and following
him. In others he directs immediately to the keeping of the commandments. In others to the doing good to the neighbor, like the
good Samaritan. In others, the first duty is love to the brethren.
And in the epistles we learn that "pure religion and undefiled before
God and the Father is to visit the fatherless and widows in their
affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world." What then
can be more evident than that life is the grand requisition, the
crowning command, of the Gospel? And yet is any thing more
palpable than that a view of Atonement which suspends salvation
upon a naked act of faith is most adverse to the claims of a life of
charity and use?
I have thus endeavored, according to my ability, to disclose the
essential distinguishing characteristics of two very diverse systems
of religious doctrines —the one a doctrine of faith, the other a doctrine
of life. You will not fail to perceive that if the one is true, the other
must inevitably be false. If the one be light, the other is darkness,
and if darkness, how great is that darkness! In looking abroad upon
the actual state of the Christian world, is there not too much reason
for resting in the justice of Swedenborg's declaration, that the Church
that has been has actually come to an end —that it is morally defunct before God. Not but that there may be good men and good
women existing in the membership of such churches; but they are
the exception and not the rule. There is, doubtless, both goodness
and truth in the creeds and in the conduct of those churches; but this
goodness and truth is so vitiated, adulterated. and falsified by pernicious mixtures of evil and error, that a new Church, founded upon
charity and life, is indispensable to the moral welfare of the world.
That such a church has been founded and entered upon its incipiency
we are happy to believe. It is a Church which fully retains every
cardinal and essential truth involved in the prevailing systems, and,
at the same time, repudiates all their errors. It utterly disclaims all




120           Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XIL
merit on the part of the creature, and makes the most sincere and unreserved ascription of all power and ability for good to the Lord himself, and thus meets the demand of the' most self-renouncing and manabasing Calvinist. On the other hand, it insists, in the most strenuous
terms, upon the highest active agency in working out our salvation
and bringing forth the fruits of righteousness, and thus satisfies the
most rigid Arminian. Again, it holds for the Trinitarian a real and
threefold distinction in the Divine nature, answering to Father, Son,
and HIoly Ghost, and, at the same time, meets the Unitarian by denying that these three distinctions are three persons, and thus maintains
with him the most absolute unity of the Godhead. It does, indeed,
hold that this unity is concentrated in the Lord JesUis Christ, than
whom we know no other God in the universe, and this the Unitarian
must receive i/ he can. But whether he does or not, it does not affect
the stability of our assurance, that if there is such a book as the Bible,
and it teaches a single truth to be believed by the human mind, it
teaches as plainly as "words can wield the matter," the supreme,
sole, and exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ. For that Jesus is Jehovah is
taught in so many words, and no one can maintain that there are
two Jehovahs.
We ask ourselves, then,-we ask our fellow-men —whether the view
now presented( has not all the evidence that can be rationally desired
of being in very deed the truth of God. Can that be the true interpretalion of Christianity which exalts faith above charity and life, or
which indicates any other mode of salvation than keeping the Commandments?
Yours, &c.
LETTER XII.
PRACTICAL RESULTS.
"U pon a just idea of God, the universal heaven, and the church universal on earth, are
jbunded, and in general the whole of religion; for by that idea there is conjlunction, and
by conj unction, light, wisdom, and eternal happiness." —Swedenborg-Preface to A. R.
DEAR SIR,
THE earnest advocate who attempts to plead the cause of Scriptural
truth has not unfrequently a double task to perform; first, to vindicate the apprehended or alleged truth from error; secondly, to show
that it is a truth worth vindicating,-the latter not seldom  the most
difficult task of the two.  It is, however, a requisition that will
hardly hold in the present case. You cannot fail to agree with me
in assigning the highest possible estimate to the importance of the
doctrine of our Lord's essential Divinity, however you may refuse to
concede the soundness and the scripturalness of the view which I
have thus far aimed to present.  With one who maintains so stren



Practical Results.                  121
uously as you do the supremacy of the claims of inspiration to
govern our views of religious doctrine, it cannot be necessary to construct a formal argument to prove, that if the conclusions already
announced do in fact accord with the genuine teachings of scripture,
they are of transcendent moment to every Christian man. The only
question which you and I can debate is, whether the doctrine of the
Loerd, as taught by Swedenborg, is really the doctrine of the Lord
as tnught by Himself and his Apostles. This question I, on my part,
have largely discussed in the foregoing series of Letters. The
ground already traversed it will be needless again to go over. I
would simply reaffirm my previous positions, and close this branch of
the arrgument by adverting to some results which seem to grow naturally out of it.
You will of course have seen that, throughout tile discussion, I
have claimed to present the true, and the only true, view  of the
scriptural doctrine of our Lord's nature as conjointly divine and
human, and becoming known to us as Jehovah-Jesus, God-man in
one person, in which,person subsists the Trinity of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. For the correctness of this view, I have adduced a
Iong array of evidences, which may or may not have carried weight
to your mind. The light however in which you regard them does not
affect their intrinsic character. They are as valid after rejection as
before. In my own estimate, the ground assumed is impregnable,
but you are of course at liberty to demonstrate the contrary if you
feel competent to do it, and deem it expedient to be done. Assuming,
meantime, the validity of my conclusions, I proceed to exhibit, from
the sources from which I have hitherto drawn, certain practical issues
that will be seen to be important just in proportion to the soundness
of the data on which they rest. ThIr-se issues bear equally upon the
prevalent Trinitarian and the prevalent Unitarian tenet on this head.
Viewed in the light of Swedenborg's expos6 of the doctrine. they
both involve an essential denial of the cardinal truth of the Incarnation of Jehovah, the true basis of the divine work of Redemption.
They therefore necessarily lay themselves open to the consequences
which it is my present purpose to unfold —consequences, as you will
see. far, very far, from  being of slight concern to those who are
chargeable with them, while at the same time they leave the system
inaccessible to the stigma of uncharitableness, intolerance, or bigotry, to which at first blush it might seem to render itself liable.
Nothing, you are well aware, is more frequent in our Lord's discourses, than the solemn affirmation of the absolute necessity of a
true knowledge of, and a true faith in, Him, in order to eternal life.
The grounds of this necessity is the point to which you wrill allow
me to call your attention, and if I draw freely upon Swedenborg in
support of my remarks, it will be. simply because I regard him as
having drawn largely and directly upon the fountain of eternal truth.
However it might appear to a superficial view that the demaand of a
cordial belief in the divine testimony was an arbitrary demand, and
to be obeyed simply firom a religious respect and reverence for the
Divine will, yet, upon deeper reflection, it will be seen to result from




122           Lette'rs to a Trinitarian.-Letter XII.
the very nature and necessity of things. It is evident that all saving
truth, communicated by God to man, must not only be intellectually
apprehended, but cordially acknowledged. It must be received not
merely with cognition, but also with agnition, as otherwise it barely
floats through the understanding, and lodges itself in the memory,
the outer court of the mind, where it is as far from being practically
received and incorporated into the life, as is a sparrow from becoming a worshiper, merely because she builds her nest near the
altar of 1he  Lord's house.  But even  acknowledgment, unless
*prompted by the affection of the heart, comes short of being the proper entertainment of divine truth, as it comes short of genuine faith.
"It is one thing," says Swedenborg, "to know truths, another to
acknowledge them, and yet another to have faith in them. Merely
to know what relates to faith, is an act of the memory, without the
consent of the rational principle; to acknowledge what is of faith is
the assent of the rational principle, influenced by certain causes,
and with a view to certain ends; but to have faith is an act of the
conscience, or of the Lord operating by means of consciencc." —(A.
C. 896.)
We may safely affirm, then, that in order to the adequate reception
of all Divine truth, and especially of that which is of the highest
import, there must be in the recipient a certain subjective state of
adaptation, congruity, or accordance with the truth which is to be
believed. As I endeavored to show in a previous letter, truth divine
comes into the mind by influx from its Author, somewhat as light
comes to the eye from the sun, and unless it finds the fitting vessels
in the spiritual organization of the soul, an adapted or orderly reception is impossible.
We can scarcely gain an adequate conception on this head without
mentally divesting man of his body and resolving him into his last
analysis, which is that of understanding and will, or intellect and
affection. Suppose him in this condition of elementary being to be
brought into contact with the Deity as the source of his happiness, is
it not obvious that there must of necessity be a reciprocal congruity
or inter-adaptation between the great truth of the Divine nature and
character, and the intellectual and moral state of the recipient
spirit?  This mutual relation may be illustrated by that which subsists between the atmosphere and the human lungs in the matter of
respiration. Unless the lungs were so formed as to be receptive of
the aerial influx, the respiratory function could never be performed.
In like manner, unless the intrinsic status of the human mind be in
accordant relation with those attributes and aspects of the Divine
nature in which it is presented, it is plainly impossible that a saving
conjuncaion between the soul and God can ever take place.
The use which I have now made of the word conjunction defines,
in fact, what I conceive, and what you will perhaps grant to be the
true and fundamental idea of salvation. For a created, intelligent
being like man, there is no such thing as salvation but in interior
vital uhion with the Lord as the self-subsisting and infinite fountain
of life and bliss. But as the very ground-elements of the Divine nature are Goodness and Truth, or Love and Wisdom, so it is requisite




Practicazl Resulls.                   123
that there should be a deep-laid conformity to that nature in the spiritual state of the creature, and such a spiritual state is in fact a.piritual orcganism.  It is only in such a state that Divine truth can be
cordially acknowledged, for as truth is the actuality or verity of thin1gs,
the state of the soul must be in unison with the state of the things
with which it is to be united, in order that the heartfelt acknowledgement of the truth may ensue.  Let the soul be once in that moral
posture which quadrates with the reality of things, and the profoundest
and sincerest acknowledgement will be the result, an acknowledgment
not so much of the lips as of the heart.
Abiding then in the soundness of the principle thus far maintained,
the great question of questions which is at the foundation of' the whole
debate is, What is the precise idea of the Lord which corresponds with
the truth? —for it is by that idea, with its appropriate affection, that
the soul is conjoined to the Lord and in that conjunction, and in that
only, is salvation. To this question there is, I conceive, but one answer.  The only correct idea of the Lord, as revealed in the Word, is
that which answers to the following formula: " That Jehovah God.
the Creator and Preserver of heaven and earth, is Love Itself' and
Wisdom Itself, or Good Itself and Truth Itself.  That He is one, both
in essence and in person, in whom, nevertheless, is the Divine Trinity
of' Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are the Essential Divinity,
the Divine Humanity, and the Divine Proceeding, answering to the
soul. the body, and the operative energy in man: and that the Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ is that God."
This, then, is the paramount asserted and constitutive truth of the
New Jerusalem —the essential Divinity and the assumed but now
glorified Humanity, co-existing in the one person of the Lord the
Saviour, in whom also is the divine trinity of Father, Son, and Iioly
Spirit, equivalent to the three distinct principles of Love, Wisdom,
and Operation in the Divine nature, and shadowed out in soul, body,
and act, as pertaining to man and angel.  The true conception, therefore, will be that of One and not of Three, except as three combined
in one, in the sense just enunciated, so that the idea of unity shall
still be predominant.  This august verity, as we are informed by
Swedenborg, is expressly revealed "for the comfort and instruction of
those who shall be admitted into the New Jerusalem."  It is the very
badge of discipleship and fellowship in that divine dispensation.  No
one who receives this grand truth in heart and life is really without
the New Church; no one who rejects it ex animo is within it.  The
declarations on this head are very explicit, as will appear from  the
following extracts, which I give without reserve, because I am  not
at liberty to disguise from myself or others any important shade of a
doctrine upon which such momentous consequences depend.
"They who live within the pale of the Church, and do not acknowledge
the Lord Jesus Christ and his Divinity, can have no unionl with God: and of
consequence can have no place with the anllels in heaven; for no one call be
united with God but by the Lord and iln thle Lord.' — H. D. 283.
* " By the Lord the Redeemer we mneanlJehovalh in the Human; for tlhat Jehovalh
himself descended and assurmed the human, for the purpose of acconmplishlinug redenip



124               Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter X1L.
" All wvho lelong to the church, and are under the influence of light from
heavein, see and discern the Divine nature in the Lord Jesus Christ; but such
as are not ntnder the inflluence of light from heaven see and discern in Him only
the humanal nature; when nevertheless the Divinity and the Humanity are so
united together in Him as to make one person: for so he Himself declares'Father, all mine are thine and thine are mine.' "-lb. 285.
"Thev who entertain an idea of three persons in their conceptions of the
Godhead, caiinnot possibly have an idea of one God: for though they say with
their lips there is but one God, yet in their minds they conceive three.  But
they who ill their conceptions of the Godhead entertain an idea of a Trinity in
one person mnay have an idea of one God, and both with their lips and with
their hearts confess that there is but one."-Ib. 289.
" The first and grand fundamental of the Church is to know and acknowiedo'e its God: for without such acliknowledgmelnt there call be no colnjunction
with Him."-1b. 2J6.' All who come into heaven have their place allotted them there, and thence
everlasting joy, according to their idea of God, because this idea reigns universally ill every particular of worship; the idea of an invisible  God is not
determined to anly God, nor does it terminate ill any, therefore it ceases and
perishes; the idea of God as a spirit, when a spirit is thought of as ether or
air, is anl empty idea; buLt the idea of God as a man, is a just idea, for God is
divine love and divine wisdom, with every quality belo-ngiing thereto, and thle
snlbject of these is mran, and not ether or wind.  The idea of God inl heaven
is the idea of the L,ord, he being the God of heaven and earth, as lhe himself
taleugt.  Of how great importance it is to have a just idea of God may appear
from this consideration, that the idea of God constitutes the inmost thought of
all those wh6 have any religion, for all things of religion and divine worship
have respect unto God; and inasmuch as God is universally and particularly
in all thiinos of reliion and worship, therefore unless it be a just idea of God,
no communication can be given with the heavens.  Hence it is that in the
spiritual world every nation has its place according to its idea of God as a
man, for in this and in no other is the idea of the Lord."-Ib. 163.
As the view  of the subject I am  now  endeavoring to present is obviously  one of the  most urgent and  irnperative  claims upon  the
church, if true, you will pardon the insertion of a somewhat extended paragraph from  Swedenborg.  He is speaking of interior rejection
of the Lord.
" The Lord is said to be rejected, when he is not approached and worshiped, and also wlhen he is approached and worshiped only as to htis h:mnan
tion, will ble demonstrated in what follows. The reason why it is said the Lord, and not
Jehovah, is because Jehovah, in the Old Testament, is called the Lord in the New, as is
evident froom these passages: it is said in Moses,' Iear, O Israel, Jehovah your God is one
Jehovah; anld thou shalt love Jehovah tliy God with all thlly heart and with -all thy y:oul'
(Dent vi. 4, 5); but in Mark,' The Lord your God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the
Lord tlly God with all thy heart and with all thy soul' (xii. 29, 30).  Also in Isaih1,' Prele re a way fbr Jehovah; make smooth in the dese:t a path for our God' (lx 3); but
in Luke,' Thou shalt go before the thee of the Lord, to prepare a way for hil' (i. 73);
besid.s in other passages. Anid also the Lord commnand(l d his disciples to cutll IIH m Lord,
and lthe refore He was so called by the apostles, in their Epistles, and alitelrwardls by the
apostolic chllurclh, as appears from their creed, whichl is called the' Apostle's Creed.' The
reason was, because the Jews durst not use the naine Jrhovrah, on accoulnt o' its salnctity;
and also, by Jehovah is meant the Divine Esse, which was fiom eternity, andt the It uman,
wlhich he assumed in time, was not that Esse.  For this reason, here, and iln what follows, by the Lord, we mnean Jehovah iie his Iroman."-'-T. C. R. A1.




Practical Results.                        125
principle, and not at the same time as to his divine; wherefore at this day he
is rejected by those within the church who do not approach and worship
him, bnt pray to the Father to have compassion on them for the sake of the
Son, when notwithstanding no man, or angel, call even approach the Father,
and immediately worship him, for the divinity is invisible, with which no otne
canl be conjoined in faith and love; for that which is invisible does not fall
into the idea of thought, nor, consequently, into the affection of the will; and
what does not fall into the idea of thought, does not fall into the faitlh, for
what pertains to the faith mnst be an object of thought.  So likewise what
does not enter into the affection of the will, does not enter into the love, for
the thitngs which pertain to the love, must affect the will of man, as all the
love which man has resides in the will. Bnt the Divine Human Principle of
the Lord falls into the idea of thought, and thus into faith, and thence into the
affection of the will, or into the love; hence it is evident, that there is no conjunction with the Father unless from the Lord, and in th'e Lord.  This the
Lord himself teaches very clearly in the Evangelists; as in John:' No one
hath seen God at any time; the only begottenl Son, who is in the bosom  of
the Father, he hath declared hirmr' (i. 18). Again,' Ye have neither heard his
voice at any time, nor seen his shape' (v. 37).  And in Matthew,' Neither
knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will
reveal him' (xi. 27). And in John:' I am the Way, and the Truth, and the
Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me' (xiv. 6). Again,' If ye had
known me, ye should have knowni my Father also; he that hath seen me
hath seen the Father; believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the
Father in me? believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me'
(xiv. 7-11).' I and my Father are one' (x. 30, 38). Again,' I am the vine, ye
are the branches; without me ye can do nothing' (xv. 5). Hence it is plain,
that the Lord is rejected by those within the church, who immediately approach the Father, and pray to him to have compassion for the sake of the
Son; for these cannot do otherwise than think of the humanity of the Lord as
of the humanity of another man, not at the same time of his Divinity in the
humanity, and still less of his Divinity conjoined with his humnanity, as the
soul is conjoined with the body, according to the doctrine universally received in the Christian world. Who, in the Christian world, that acknow.
ledges the Divinity of the Lord, is willing that this acklnowledgment should
be such as to place his divine principle out of his human; when nevertheless
to think of the human principle alone, and not at the same time of the divine
in the hnman, is to view them separate, which is not to view the Lord, nor
both as one person, when yet the doctrine received in the Christian world is,
that the Divinity and Humanity of the Lord make not two persons, but one
person? They who constitute the church at this day do, indeed, thinkl concerning the divine principle of the Lord in his human, when they spealk fiom
the doctrine of the church, but altogether otherwise when they thilnk and
speak with themselves without that doctrine; but let it be known, that man
is in one state when he thinks and speaks from doctrine, and in another when
he thinks and speaks withot tit. Whilstman thinks and speaks from doctrine,
his thought and speech are from the memory of his natural man; but when
he thinks and speaks out of doctrine. his thought and speech are then from
his spirit; for to think and spealk from the spirit, is to think and speak from
the interiors of his mind, wherefore what he thence speaks is his real faith.
From these considerations it also appears how it is to be understood, that the
Lord is rejected at this day by those who are within the church, namely, that
from doctrine indeed it is allowed that the Divinity of the Lord is to be acklnowledgoed and believed in the same degree as the Divinity of the Father,
for the doctrine of the church teaches,'that as is the Father, so also is the
Sol, uncreate, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, God, Lord, neither of them greater
or less, before or after the other.' Notwithstanding this, however, they do not
worship the Lord as divine, but worship the Divinity of the Father, as is the
case vwhen they pray to the Father, that he may have compassion on them
for the sake of his Son, and when they'use these words, they do not at all




126            Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XIL
think of the divine principle of the Lord, but of his human separate from the
divine, thus of his humanity, as similar to that of another mall. On such oc
casions they think not of one God, but of two, or three. To think thus concerning the Lord, is to reject him; for not to think of his divine principle in
conjunction with his human, is by separation to exclude the divine, which
nevertheless are not two persons but one person, and make a one as soul and
body.' —A. E. 114.
From all this, the inference is very clear that a conception of the
Lord, according to the absolute truth of his being and attributes, is
all important in order to salvation; and the ground of this is, that in
no other way can that conjunction take place which is the very essence of eternal life. It is here pre-eminently that the distinctive
character of the New Church appears conspicuous. It worships a
visible God with whom there may be conjunction.
"The reason why this New Church is the crown of all churches that have
heretofore existed on this earthly globe is, because it will worship one visible
God, in whom is the invisible God, as the soul is in the body; and the true
ground and reason why the conljunction of God with man is thus, and in no
other way, possible, is, because man is natural, and consequently thinks naturally, and conjunction is effected in thought, and thereby in the affection of
love, and such conjunction takes place when man thinks of God as a man.
Conjunction with an invisible God is like the conjunction of ocular vision with
the expanse of the universe, of which it sees no end; it is also like vision in
the midst of the ocean, which falls on air and water, and is lost in their immensity; but conjunction with a visible God is like the sight of a man in the air
or the sea, styetching forth his hands and inviting to his embraces; for all conjunction of God with man must be liliewise reciprocal on the part of man with
God, and this is not possible but with a visible God." —T. C. R. 787.
I am well aware, however, that in speaking of conjunction with the
Lord as salvation, I am  using a term  that is for the most part extremely unwelcome and unpalatable to those whose theological system is run in the moulds of Wittemberg, Geneva, or Westminster.
Having formed to themselves the idea of a salvation founded on vicarious atonement and made available by means of forensic imputation, they inevitably cherish a latent aversion to a term which involves, by implication, a virtual denial of the whole scheme, and resolves the very element of religious principle into harmonious and
vital union with the Lord. They cannot well refrain from charging
it as mystical, to say nothing of the disparagement that some may
throw upon it by representing it as really subversive of the work of
Christ viewed as a satisfaction for sin, and as confounding justification with sanctification. But all this passes with the man of the New
Church unheeded as objection, though awakening sad sentiments as
evidence of moral state in the objector.  With such a ground work
for our position as we find laid in the following extracts, we should be
strangely wanting to ourselves to abate an iota of the strength of our
confidence in its impregnability.
" Inasmuch as the church at this day does not know that conjtanction with
the Lord constitutes heaven, and that conjunction is effected by the acknvowl.
edglaeut that he is the God of heaven and earth, and at the same time by a
life according to his commandments, therefore it may be expedient to say




Practical Results.                      127
sornething on this subject. A person altogether ignorant of these matters may
possibly say, What signifies conjunction  kow canll acknowledgmnent and life
occasion conjunction? what need is there of these things? may not every
one be saved from mercy alone 3 what need is there then for any other medium of salvation but faith alone? is not God merciful and omnipotent 3 But
let him know, that in the spiritual world all presence is effected by knowledge
and acknowledgment, and that all conjunction is effected by affection which is
of love.       Faith and the consequent presence of the Lord is given by the
knowledges of the truths of the Word, especially by those concerning the Lord
himself there, but love and consequent conjunction is given by a life according to his commandments, for the Lord saith,' He that hath my commandments
and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and I will love him, and will manifest
myself to him' (John xiv. 21)." —A. R. 913.
" The very essential principle of the Church is the acknowledgment of the
union of the Divine itself in the Human of the Lord, and this must be in all and
singular the things of worship. The reason why this is an essential of the
Church, and hence an essential of worship is, because the salvation of the human race depends solely on that union." —A. C. 10,370.
If then the idea of God in heaven be the idea of the Lord Jesus
Christ in his Divine Humanity, and saving conjunction with him can
ensue only from this view of his nature, surely the idea of a tri-personal Deity is not only false in itself, but, if confirmed, absolutely
destructive of genuine truth and fatal to the possibility of that conjunction in which salvation is enwrapped.*  Equally disastrous to
the interests of the soul is the Unitarian tenet when fully inwrought
into the deepest convictions of the holder, because it is equally at
war with that essential truth with which the spirit of man must be
in what we may term organical accordance in order to be saved.  It
is one of the prominent positions of Swedenborg that " every man is
his own will and his own understanding; because the will is the
receptacle of love and thus of all the goods which are of that love,
and the understanding is the receptacle of wisdom, and thus of all
the things of truth which are of that wisdom, it follows, that every
man is his own love and his own wisdom; or, what is the same, his
own good and his own truth.  Man is not man fiom any thing else,
and not any thing else with him is man. He who thinks, and speaks
nothing but truth, becomes that truth; and he who wills and does
nothing but good, becomes that good." If this be so-and I see not
how it can be denied-the same principle must hold good as to what
one holds and believes to be truth, though in reality it be falsity;
consequently, as a man's apprehension of truth becomes the very
form of his being, as its goods does its essence, how can this being
be to him a source of happiness unless the belief within him corresponds to the truth without him?
That the positions above assumed should be at one time of a more
urgent and imperative character than at another might seem at first
blush incredible, but the following passage implies that causes are
*' They who are in falsities, and yet in the good of life, according to their religion,
eannot be saved until their falsities are removed, so that truths may be implanted in their
place." —S. E. 478.




128            Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XII.
operating at the present day to give additional solemnity and sanction
to the conclusions already announced.
" To confirm this further, I wvill relate what I know, because I have seen,. and
therefore I can testify what follows; that the Lord, at this day, is forming a
new alngelic heaven, and that it is formed of those who believe in the Lord
God the Saviour, and go immediately to Him; and that the rest are rejected.
Wherefore, if any one hereafter comes from Christendom into the spirit.ual
world, into xvhich every man does come after death, and does not believe in
the Lor(d, and go to Him alone, and then is not able to receive this, because lie
lived wickedly, or has confirmed himself in falses, he is repelled at his first approacli towards heaven. Every man also in Christian countries, who does not
believe ill the Lord, is not hereafter heard with acceptance; his prayers, in
heaven, are like ill-scented odors, and like eructations from ulcerated lungs;
and if he thinks that his prayer is like the perfume of incense, still it does not
ascend to the angelic heaven. otherwise than as the smolie of a fire, which is
driven baclk by a violent tempest, into his eyes, or as the perfume from a censer under a monlk's cloak; thus, after this time, it is wvith all piety which is determined to a divided trinity, and not to one conjoined."-T. C. R. 108.
This will no doubt be set down by many as the mere overflowing
of the gall of bitterness with which the spirit of the wvriter is supposed to be surcharged whenever he comes to speak of those who
hold the views generally entertained in the Christian world.  It will
be regarded as of a piece with his emphatic declaration (D. 1N. J.
289), that " they who entertain an idea of three persons in their conceptions of the Godhead, cannot possibly have an idea of one God;
for though they say with their lips that there is but one God; yet in
their minds they conceive three. But they who, in their conceptions
of the Godhead, entertain an idea of a Trinity in one person may
have an idea of one God, and both with their lips and with their
hearts confess that there is but one." This of course must be left to
the judgment of each individual reader. However much it may
savor of intolerance, it is still to be pronounced upon according to
the weight of the reasons on which the sentence is founded.  It may
go somewhat, I trust, to soften the apparent asperity of the statement fbr the reader of it to be informed, that Swedenborg teaches no
other exclusion from the happiness of heaven than that which is necessary, resulting from the dominant moral state of the person. He
knows nothing of any immediate and arbitrary act of the Divine will
ordaining such a lot of rejection.  No one is shut out of the blissful
mansions but he who shuts himself out.
But I am here reminded of the frequent protestations made on the
score of the views actually entertained by Trinitarians in regard to
the subjects which I have thus far discussed.  The tritheistic tendency,
which is all along virtually alleged of the current doctrines of the
Divine nature, is stoutly denied, and the assertions of New Church
writers charged as little short of a downright slander upon a large
body of religionists.  To this again I reply in the first intstance by
exhibiting Swedenborg's testimony on this head, and submitting the
question of its truthl to the candid decision of yourself and others into
whose hands the present discussion may chance to fall.




Practical Results.                     129' At the end of the Church the Lord is indeed preached, and also from doctrine Divinity is attributed to Him like to the Divinity of the Father; but notwithstanding scarce any one thinks of his Divinity, by reason of their placing
it above or without His Humanity, wherefore when they look to His Divinity
they do not look to the Lord, but to the Father as to another; when notwithstanding the Divinity, which is called the Father, is in the Lord, as He Himself
teaches in Johni, chap. x. 30, 38; chap. xiv. 7: hence it is that man does not
think of the Lord otherwise than as of a common man, and from that thought
flows his faith, howsoever he may say with his lips that lhe believes His
Divinity: let any one explore, if he can, the idea of his thought concerning
the Lord, whether it. be not such as is here described, and when it is such, he
cannot be conjoined to Him in faith and love, nor by conjunction receive any
good of love and truth of faith: hence then it is, that in the endl of the Church,
there is not any acknowledgment of the Lord, that is, of the Divine [principle]
in the Lord and from the Lord: it appears, indeed, as if the Divine [principle]
of the Lord was acknowledged, because it is affirmed in the doctrine of the
Church; but whilst the Divine [principle] is separated from His Human, His
Divine [principle] is not yet acknowledged inwardly, but only outwardly, and
to acknowledge it outwardly is to acknowledge it only with the mouth, and
not in'the heart, or with speech only, and not in faith. That this is the case,
may appear from Christians in the other life, where the thoughts of the heart
are matifested: when it is granted themt to speak from doctrine, and from
what they have heard from preaching, then they attribute Divinity to the Lord,
and call it their faith; but wlen their interior thought and faith is explored,
it is found that they have a different idea concerning the Lord, which is as of a
common man, to whom nothing divine can be attributed: the interior thought
of man is the real ground of his faith, wherefore, such being the thought and
thence the faith of his spirit, it is evident, that there is not any acknowledgment of the Divine [principle] in the Lord and from the Lord, in the Christian
world, at the end of the Church..In a word, there is indeed an external acknowledgmnent of the Divine [principle] of the Lord, but no internal, and external acknowledgment is of the natural man alone, but internal acknowledgment
is of his spirit itself; and the external is laid deep after death, but the internal,
being of his spirit, remains."-A. E. 649.
The present, according to Swedenborg, is the period of the " end
of the Church," that is, of the Christian church, both Protestant and
Roman, because this, as we learn, is the period of the Second
Advent, when the former church is consummated by the extinction of
charity and consequently of true faith, and a new one, the church
of the New Jerusalem, is established. In this state of things, while
the Divinity of Christ is ostensibly maintained, our author affirms
that it is really denied, inasmuch as the Divinity and Humanity are
in effect so completely sundered from each other in the popular conception, that the one stands as the representative of the sole Jehovah
or the Father, while the latter sinks to the level of the common
manhood of the race, so that the genuine doctrine of a Trinity is in
effect dissipated into thin air. The truth is, the idea of a threefold
principle or character in one person is the only true idea of the
Scriptural Trinity, and this idea can never be entertained but when
it is perceived that the Divinity itself or the Father, the Divine Humanity or the Son, and the Divine Proceeding or Holy Ghost, are all
concentrated in the single person of our Lord, Jesus of Nazareth,
the Saviour of the world.  Let any one who thinks he can entertain
an idea of one God existing in three separate Divine persons, honestly
and ingenuously examine his own mind, and see whether he can
9




130             Letters to a Trinitarian.  Letter XJII.
really think of God out of Christ and yet consider Christ as God; or
whether he can really think of Christ as God at all, when he thinks
of the Father as distinct from him. We imagine that this test alone
faithfully applied would be sufficient to determine the question of the
truth of Swedenborg's averrments as so frequently cited. above.*
The consideration of the charges of intolerance and bigotry I reserve to another letter.
Yours, &c.
LETTER XIi.
PRACTICAL RESULTS.
DEAR SIR,
As intimated in my last, I am prepared to encounter the objection
which will scarcely fail to be urged, if not by yourself, at least by
others;-to wit, that of uncharitableness, intolerance, and bigotry
in the system.  As the New  Church clairhs to be pre-eminently, a
dispensation of love-as its doctrines are frequently termed heavenly
doctrines —as its genius is often avowed to be angelic, which at the
least implies mild, gentle, benignant-how can such a severe and exclusive spirit consist with such professions? Are there not multitudes
of good men who sincerely embrace, some the Trinitarian and some
the Unitarian dogma?  And if they are good will they not be saved?
I have hinted a doubt whether you yourself would urge this objection, for my impression is, that with you the great question is the
intrinsic truth of the doctrine advanced, and that when once satisfied
on that head you are prepared for the most stern and stringent issues
that may legitimately ensue. Your profound reverence for the divine
oracles, in  all the  length  and  breadth  of their genuine purport,
would rather lead you to exclaim-" Purity before peace-let God be
true, but every man a liar-let the truth stand though the heavens
fall."  But this is not the mood of multitudes.  There is a certain
sentiment of soi-disant liberality and charity which frowns upon
and  denounces every thing in the shape of an asserted fundamen* "If this divine truth is not received, that the Lord's Human is Divine, it necessarily
hence follows that there is a trine which is to be adored, but not a one, and also that halt
of the Lord is to be adored, namely his Divine, but not his Human; for who adores what
is not divine? And is the Church anything where a trine is adored, one separately from
the other, or what is the same, where three are equally worshiped? For, although
three are called one, still the thought distinguishes and makes three, and only the
discourse of the mouth says one. Let every one weigh this with himself, when he says
that he acknowledges and believes one God, whether he does not think of three; and
when he says that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and
they also distinguished into persons, and distinguished as to offices, whether he can think
that there is one God, except so that three distinct among themselves make one by concordance, and also-by condescension so far as one proceeds from another; when, therefore, three Gods are adored, where is then the Church? But if the Lord alone be adored,
in whom there is a perfect trine, and who is in the Father and the Father in Him, as He
himself says; then there is a Christian church."-A. C. 4766.




Practical Results.                 131
tal doctrine of faith. In the system of the New Church we have
such a doctrine, and that is the doctrine of the Lord, upon which I
have thus far descanted. We are taught to regard this doctrine as
vital to salvation, and yet I shall hope to show that notwithstanding
the rigor of demand on this score, nothing of undue severity or revolting exclusiveness is, on that account, really chargeable upon the
system. It will be the height of injustice to impute an intolerant or
anathematizing spirit to Swedenborg if he gives an adequate reason
for his sentence, founded in the very nature of things. Let the
question first be settled whether the principles above stated, respecting acknowledgement and conjunction, be true, and then let it be
determined whether he is justly open to the reproach of a bigoted intolerance. The fact is, the decision of this point is suspended upon
that of another, viz., whether Swedenborg speaks on this subject in
his private personal capacity, or as a divinely commissioned messenger of heaven to men. If the latter, then his enunciations are to be
referred to a higher source than his own spirit, and are merged in
the dictates of eternal truth. Since, however, we have no hope
that this question will be entertained by the mass of the Christian
world, we are happy to be able to rest his vindication on another
basis, and one of a character so truly philosophical that it can hardly
fail, when rightly understood, to win back the confidence and esteem
which may have been chillingly repulsed by the literal assertions
above adduced.
A fundamental principle of the New Church theology, as expounded by Swedenborg, is that the closest and most indissoluble relation exists between Goodness and Truth, as there does also between
Evil and Falsity. Truth in the understanding is the normal and
legitimate product of goodness in the will (voluntas), which with
Swedenborg is but another name for love or affection, as a man wills
what he loves. The voluntary principle is accordingly thus distinguished from the intellectual. In saying that truth is the legitimate
outbirth of good, I do not of course mean to imply that no degree of
the false is found in conjunction with good, and no degree of truth
in conjunction with evil. I only mean that when such conjunctions
do-exist they are abnormal and illicit. The true relation is that
which I have stated above, and we learn, that, in virtue of this relation, truth and falsity virtually change their nature accordingly as
they are severally in alliance with good or with evil. Genuine truth
is not truth to him who is in evil, and absolute is only apparent falsity
to him who is in the good of life. The teachings of Swedenborg on
this subject are so immeasurably in advance of any thing before
given to the world, and are so instinct with a wisdom that savors of
the superhuman, that I shall presume upon your indulgence in offering somewhat copious extracts. You will see from these that it is
coifirmation which determines the effect of a man's intellectual errors
upon his destiny.
i- From the contrariety existing between good and evil, the true and the false,
it is plain that truth cannot be joined with evil, nor good with the false that




132             Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XIII.
originates in evil; for if truth be joined with evil, it is no longer truth, but
becomes false, inasmuch as it is falsified: and if good be joined with the false
of evil, it is no longer good, but becomes evil, inasmuch as it is adulterated.
Nevertheless the false, which has not its ground in evil, is capable of being
joined with goodness." —T. C. R. 398
" From  evil exist all falses; but the falses which are not from evil, in the
external form indeed are falses, but not in the internal; for there are falses
given with those who are in the good of life, but interiorly in those falses there
is good, which causes the evil of the false to be removed; hence that false
before the angels does not appear as the false, but as a species of truth; for
the angels look at the interior things of faith and not at its exterior: hence it
is that every one. of whatsoever religion he be, may be saved, even the Gentiles who have no truths from the Word, if so be they have respected the good
of life as an end."-A. C. 10,648.
"All are saved who are in the good of life according to the dogmas of their
religion which they believed to be truths, although they were not truths, for
what is false is not imputed to any who lives well according to the dogmas
of his'religion, for the good of life according to religion contains within itself
the affection of knowing truths, which such persons also learn and receive,
when they come into another life, for every affection remains with mall after
death, and especially the affection of knowing truths, because this is a spiritual
affection, and every man when he becomes a spirit is his own affection; of
consequence the truths which they desire they imbibe, and so receive them
deeply in their hearts.".-A. E. 455.
"From the fact, that appearoances of truth may be taken for naked truths,
and confirmed, have sprung all the heresies which have been and still are in
the Christianl world. Heresies themselves do not condemn men: but confirmations of the falsities, which are in a heresy, from the Word, and by reasonings from the natural man and an evil life, do condemnll. For every one is born
into the religion of his country, or of his parents, is initiated into it from infancy, and afterwards retains it; nor can he extricate himself fiom its falses,
both on account of business in the world, and on accrunit of the weakness of
the understanding iln perceivinll truths of that sort  but to live wiclkedly and
confirm falses, even to the destruction of gentine truth, this does condemn.
For lie whio continues ill his religion, and believes in God, and in Christendom,
believes in the Lord, and esteems the Word holy, and fromn religion lives according to the commandments of the decalogne, he does not swear to falses;
wherefore, when he hears truths, and in his own way perceives them, he can
embrace them, and thus be led out of falses; but not he who had confirmed
the falses of his religion, for the false, when confirmed, remains, and cannot
be extirpated; for a false, after confirmation, is as if one had sworn to it, particularly if it coheres with the love of himself, or w7ith the pride of his own
intelligence.
"I have spoken with some n the spiritual world, who lived manv  ages ago,
and confirmed themselves in the falses of their own religion, and I have found
that they still remained firmly in the same; and I have also spoken with some
there, who were in the same religion, and thought like those, but had not confirmeed its falses in themselves, and' I have found, that, when instructed by the
angels, they have rejected falses and received truths; and that these were
saved, but not those. Every man is instructed by the angels after death, and
those are received who see truths, and from truth, falses; but those only see
truths who have not confirmed themselves in falses; but those who have confirmed themselves are not willing to see truths: and if they do see. they turn
theima-elves bl.ack, und then either laugh at them or falsify them; the genline
cause is, that confirmation enters the will, and the will is the man himself,
and it disposes the understanding according to its pleasure; but bare knowl



Practical Results.                     133
edge only enters the understanding, and this has not any authority over the
will, and so is not in man, otherwise than as one who stands in the entry, or
at the door, and not as yet in the house." —T. C. R. 254, 255.
As this subject is treated at great length in various parts of Swedenborg's works, I will content myself with transcribing the following
references to the Arcana, which contain an argument in themselves.
"That there are falses of religion which agree with good, and falses which
disagree, n. 9259; that falses of religion, if they do not disagree with good, do
not produce evil except with those who are in evil, n. 8318: that falses of religion are not imputed to those who are in good, but to those who are in evil,
n. 8051, 8149; that truths not genuine, and also falses, may be consociated
with genuine truths with those who are in aood, but not with those who are
in evil, n. 3470, 3471, 4551, 4552, 7344, 8149, 9298; that falses and truths are
consociated by appearances from the literal sense of the Word, n. 7344; that
falses are verified and softened by good, because they are applied and made
conducive to good, and to the renloval of evil, n. 8148; that the falses of religion with those who are in good, are received by the Lord as truths, n. 4736,
8149.; that the good whose quality is from a false principle of religion, is accepted by the Lord if there be ignorance, and if there be in it innocence and a
good end, n. 7887; that the truths which are with man are appearances of
truth and good, tinctured with fallacies, but the Lord nevertheless adapts them
to genuine truths with the man who liveth in good, n. 2053; that falses nll
lwhich there is good exist with those who are out of the church, and thence
in ignorance of the truth, also with those within the church where there are
f-alses of doctrine, I. 2589-2604, 2861, 2863, 3263, 3778, 4189, 4190, 4197, 6700,
9256." —A. E. 452.
If all this may be said of the heathen, who have never enjoyed a
written revelation, how much more mnay we suppose it to hold good
of thousands who have lived and died in Christian lands?  You will
hardly fail to draw from it, at any rate, the inference, that one may
be internally in such a state of good, as it concerns the affections, as
to counterbalance and neutralize the errors of the intellect. Consequently, as this good has a powerful elective affinity for truth, the presumntion is, that in the other life, if not in this, the good will come
into conjunction with its appropriate truth, and when this result takes
place, salvation cannot but ensue; for it is in this that salvation consists. The imputation of narrowness and denunciation grows legitimately out of the current views of human destiny in the other life.
It is taught in all the porular theologies, that man goes at death
either to heaven or to hell, and that anything like instruction is superseded by the full blaze of truth flashing at once upon the translated
spirit, and revealing to it an eternal inheritance of bliss or woe, according to its moral state.  From Swedenborg we learn an entirely
different doctrine of the future, and by his own revelations are his
decisions as to character and state to be judged.  He teaches fromn
alleged direct illumination, that there is an intermediate state into
which man enters upon leaving the present world, and that in that
state a process takes place by which his interior loves and thoughts
shall be developed in freedom, and his lot finally determined according as goodness and truth shall predominate over evil and falsity, or
the reverse. It is a state in which every spirit is instructed by angels,




134           Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XIIL
and if he be found to have been interiorly principled in good, the
truths which he may, from various causes, have refused to receive in
this life are then seen to be truths, and as such cordially embraced.
When this result is fully accomplished, the spirit is prepared for heaven, for the conjunction of good and truth is heaven. "It is not
permitted," says Swedenborg, "to any one in heaven nor in hell to
have a divided mind, that is, to understand one thing and to will
another; but what he wills he must also understand, and what he
understands he must also will. Wherefore, in heaven, he who wills
good must understand truth, and in hell he who wills evil must understand what is false; therefore, with the good falses are then removed and truths are given agreeable and conformable to their good,
and with the evil truths are removed, and falses are given agreeable
and conformable to their evil."-H. & H. 425.
With these fundamental principles before us, we can see how it is
that two such apparently conflicting classes of declarations, as are
represented in the following extracts, may still be perfectly consistent
with each other.
" The reason why there is no appropriation of good with those who do not
acknowledge the Lord is, because for man to acknowledge his God is the first
principle of religion, and with Christians to acknowledge the Lord is the first
principle of the Church, for without acknowledgment there is no communication given, consequently no faith, thus no love; hence the primary tenet of
doctrine in the Christian Church is, that without the Lord there is no salvation;
for whatsoever he calls true and believes, and whatsoever he calls good and
loves, cannot be called true and good, unless it be from the Divine, thus unless
it be from tihe Lord, for that man from himself cannot believe and do good,
that all truth and all good comes from above, is also a known thing; hence
it is manifestly evident that they within the Church who do not acknowledge
the Lord, cannot have faith, thus neither can they have love to God, consequently neither can they be saved. Hence it may be manifest what is the lot
of those in the other life, who have been born within the Church, and yet in
heart deny the Lord, whatsoever may be their quality as to moral life; by
abundant experience also it hath been given to know, that they cannot be
saved; which the Lord teaches openly in John,' He that believes in the Son,
hath eternal life, and he who doth not believe the Son, shall not see life, but
the anger of God abideth in him,' iii. 36." —A. C. 10,112.
"With respect to Christians amd Gentiles in another life, the case is this;
Christians, who have acknowledged the truths of faith, and at the same time
have led a life of good, are accepted before Gentiles, but such Christians at
this day are few in number; whereas, Gentiles, who have lived in obedience
and mutual charity, are accepted before Christians who have not led a good
life. For all persons throughout the universe are, of the mercy of the Lord,
accepted and saved, who have lived in good, good itself being that which receives truth, and the good of life being the very ground of the seed, that is,
of truth; evil of live never receives it; although they who are in evil should
be instructed a thousand ways, yea, the instruction should be most perfect,
still the truths of faith with them would enter no further than into the memory,
and would not penetrate into the affection, which is of the heart; wherefore,
also, the truths of their memory are dissipated, and become no truths in amnother life."- A. C. 2590.
On the whole, may I not venture to regard the vindication of Swe



Practical Results.                     135
denborg, on the score of uncharitableness and bigotry as complete?
Is not this seeming sternness of requisition on the score of faith in the
Lord as God-man that of truth itself? As an expositor of the profoundest laws of man's moral nature, could he lower the standard of requirement on this head? At the same time, is it not perfectly obvious
that the very soul of Christian charity breathes through his teachings,
which so explicitly lay the foundation of eternal life in the love instead of the understanding, and declare, that nothing but a falsity
confirmed by an evil love will put the soul beyond the pale of salvation? What more could you desire of a teacher professing to derive
his doctrines from heaven? Could you accord to him your credence,
if he addressed his fellow-men in any other strain?
Permit me, in this connexion, to adduce the following pertinent
paragraph from my "Reply to Dr. Woods," in which I am endeavoring to meet this very objection of uncharitableness.
" Bt we are pressed by the consequences. If the doctrines held and taug ht
by such men as Leighton, Baxter, Scott, Edwards, Brainerd, Payson, and others
of similar stamp, really involved grand and essential errors, do we not, by the
very force of the allegation, pronounce sentence upon the men, and cut them
off from all hope of heaven?  Do we not consign them over to a fatal fellowship with'the dragon and his crew' No other inference could well be
drawn from the above presentation of the subject, and yet no inference could
be more unjust or injurious to our author and to the true character of his system. Not the least striking among its wonderful features is that of the enlarged and catholic charity which it breathes towards every degree of real
good, with whatever error of understanding it is found in conjunction.  The
fundamental distinction upon which it every where insists between the love or
life principle, and the mere intellectual conviction of truth, upon the former of
which, and not upon the latter, salvation is suspended, enables him to recognize the heirs of eternal life in multitudes of those whose doctrinal belief is
widely at variance with that which he inculcates. Indeed, I have often been
deeply and admiringly impressed by the tender solicitude he evinces so to discriminate between the falsities of the head and the heart as to embrace as many as
possible within the range of the Lord's saving goodness. Nothing approaching to a spirit of stern and gloomy denunciation is to be found in his writings.
It is only when falsities are intelligently confirmed and thence wrought into the
texture of the life, that he despairs of a happy result. And it would certainly
be strange if one who assures us that even the well-disposed heathen, who live
up to the light of their convictions, are saved as far as their goodness and
truth will admit, should still exclude from the prospect of heaven such men
as the pious worthies whose names you have recited. That their faith was
at fault so far as it coincided with the leading popular dogmas upon which I
have dwelt, is undoubtedly true, but you Nvill see from the extracts which
follow, that their errors might still consist with a salvable state, though they
must. necessarily detract from that completeness and symmetry of character,
which results from the fair and full conjunction of Goodness and Truth." —
(P. 165.)
As then our venerated author has so abundantly disclosed the
grounds of his averments on this head, and referred his decisions, not
to arbitrary enactment, but to the intrinsic necessity of things, founded
upon the laws of being, it is to be hoped that he may stand acquitted
of the charge of undue severity, or harshness of judgment, in respect
to the moral state of those who fail to receive the truth as by him




136           Letters to a Trinitarian.-Letter XIII.
announced. In fact, the real question is not whether he is severe or
mild, but whether he is true or false.  If his grand positions relative
to the genuine doctrine of the Lord, and to the interior constitution
of man's nature, be sound-if he has clearly evinced that there is an
absolute truth in respect to the former which must be really responded to by the dominant state of the latter —then I do not perceive that
any solid basis exists for the disparaging imputations which many
may be prompted to cast upon him on this account. He does indeed
insist upon a cordial acknowledgment of what he clearly teaches to
be the paramount truth of heaven and the universe, in order to receiving the benefit of that truth in our own soul. And is he not warranted in thus teaching?  If our Lord himself declares that eternal
life is suspended on the condition of BELIEVING IN HIM, must not that
belief be a belief of the truth respecting his nature and character?
As this salvation consists essentially in conjunction with the Divine
Being, and this conjunction demands acknowledgment, can any other
acknowledgment avail than the acknowledgment of that which is
true in itself? Will the acknowledgment of a false or unreal God be
attended with the same effect?  In a word, is there not the most ample evidence of the soundness of Swedenborg's positions on this head?
And have we any sufficient reasons for repudiating his statement,
that " hereafter no one can come from Christians into Heaven, unless
he believes in the Lord God, the Saviour, and goes to him  alone?"
If this sounds a note abhorrent to Unitarian ears, let them set over
against it all the force of the argument hitherto adduced in its support, and let them also give its due weight to the following paragraph
which protests with equal emphasis against the leading error of the
Trinitarians, while it lays at the same time a foundation of hope for
both Trinitarian and Unitarian who come within the scope of its provisions.
" Tt is necessary to know, first, who is the God of heaven, since all othet
things depend on this. In the universal heaven, no other is acknowledged
as the God of heaven but the Lord (i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ).  It is three
said, as he Himself taught, that "He is one with the Father;" that' the Father is in Him, and He in the Father;" and that " whosoever seeth Him seeth
the Father;" and that " every thing which is holy proceedeth from Him." I
have frequently conversed with the angels on this subject, and they constantly said, that they cannot in heaven distinguish the Divine into three, because
they know and perceive that the Divine is One, and that it is One in the Lord.
They said also that they of the Church who come from the world, and have
entertained an idea of three Divine persons, cannot be admitted into heaven,
because their thought wanders from one to another, and it is not allowable
there to think of three, and to confess One, because every one in heaven speaks
from thought. Speech there is cogitative speech, or thought spealking; wherefore they in the world who have distinguished the Divine into three, and have
conceived a separate idea of each, arid have not made and concenttrated it
into one in the Lord, cannot be received; for in heaven there is a commiulica.tion of the thoughts of all, wherefore if ally one should come thither thinllkinl
of three and confessing one, he would be immediately discovered and rejected. It is however to be noted, that all those who have not separated truth
from good, or faith from love, when instructed in the other life, receive the
heavenly idea concerning the Lord, namely, that IHe is the God of the uni



Practical Results.                               137
veroe;  but it is otherwise with those who have separated faith from life, that
is, wvho have not lived according to the precepts of a true faitlt."* —-H.   H. 2.
But I forbear further enlargement.  The grand purpose which I had
in view  in entering upon the present series of Letters, is now  accoirn
plished.  Under the most positive  and  abiding  conviction  that the
prevalent views of Christendom  on the sublime and central doctrine
of the TRINITY IN UNITY are radically erroneous, and therefore morally
pernicious, I have aimed to set forth, with all the distinctness in my
power, that form  of the doctrine which we find so luminously developed in the theology of the New  Church.  It is this doctrine mainly
which gives character to that Church, and in which we find, in fact,
the chief testimony to  its heavenly origin.  We can  appeal to  no
higher proof of the Divine genius of this dispn-nsation than the fact,
that it bears in its bosom  a doctrine so immeasurably in advance of
anything ever delivered in the schools of theology —so conformed to
Scripture, so consonant with reason —and, in a word, so lucent with the
light which  beams from  the celestial sphere.  I am, indeed, aware
that it is very easy to  turn  aside  the point of the whole preceding
train of reasoning, by assuming to one's self, that it is a system  resting solely upon the authority or the bare ipse dixit of a man who had
given himself up to the enthusiastic conceit of possessing  a divine
illumination,  by virtue of which  all sacred mysteries were laid open
to him.  But I do not perceive how  such  a verdict can  proceed from
any candid mind after perusing the long chain of extracts embodied
in the preceding pages.  I should be at a loss upon which one of the
whole series of paragraphs to fix as most likely to come under the
imputation  of incoherence, irrationality, or phantasy.  Is there  any
one of then which mig'ht not have come from  the most sedate and
sober mind that ever pronounced itself upon theological themes?  To
take, for instance, the following, with which I close the list:"They wrho come at this day into the other life from  the Christian church
* " They who are truly men of the Church, that is, who are in love to the Lord, and in
charity towards their neiohlbor, know and acknowledge a Trine, bLut still they humble
themselves before the Lord, and adore him alone, inasmuch as they know, that there is
no access to tlhe esentitl Divine, which is called the Father, but by the Son, and that all
the holy, which is of the Holy Ghost, proceeds fiom  Him; and when they are in this
idea, they adore no otlier than Hitn, by whom  and from whom are all things; consequently they adore One, nor do they divide their ideas upon three, as is the case with
niany within the Clltrch, and as may appear from  many in another life, even fronom the
learned, who in the liie of the body have irnagined themselves to possess more than others
the arcana offiadth. These being explored in respect to the idea they have had of one
God, whether there be three uncreate, three infinite, three eternal, three omnipotent, and
three Lords, it was umanibfestly perceived that they had an idea of three (for in another life.
there is given a comlmunication of ideas), when yet it is expressly said in the Creed, that
there are not three uncreate, nor three infinite, nor three eternal, nor three omnnipotent,
nor three Lords, but One, as is really the case; thus they confessed, that with thle mouth
they indeed asserted God to be One, but still they tlhought, and some of them believed in
three, whom they could in idea separate, but not join together; the reason whereof' is,
becanse all arcana, even the deepest, are attended wvith somre idea, for without an idea
nothing can have place in the thoughts, or even be retained in the memory.  Hence il
another lifis it is manifest, as in open day, whattt kiind of thought, and faith thence, every
one has lormiied to himself concerning one God.' —Al. C. 2329.




138           Letters to a Trinitarian. -Letter XII.
almost all have an idea concerning the Lord as concerning another man, no*
only separate from the Divine, although they also adjoin the Divine to Him,
but also separate from Jehovah, and what is more, separate also from the holy
which proceeds from Him: they say indeed one God, but still they think three.
and actually divide the Divine among three, for they distinguish into persons,
and call each God, and attribute to each a distinct proprium; hence it is said
of Christians in the other life, that they worship three Gods, because they
think three, howsoever they say one. But they who have been Gentiles, and
converted to Christianity, in the other life adore the Lord alone; and this by reason that they believed that it could not be otherwise than that the supreme God
manifested himself on earth as a man, and that the supreme God is a divine
man, and that if they had not such an idea of the supreme God, they could
not have any idea, thus neither could they think about God, consequently they
could not know him, and still less love him." —A. C. 5256.
Is there anything in this which savors of dementation?  You may
say, perhaps, that this character is to be predicated of his claim to a
knowledge of the state of things in the other life.  The doctrine, it
may be said, may consist with a sound state of mind, but the disclosures bespeak hallucination. But we find the evidence of the truth
of the disclosures in the character of the doctrines, which could never
have been the product of a disordered intellect. It is the amazing
intuition into the truths pertaining to the present life, so vastly transcending the reach of the highest unassisted genius, that assures us
of his reliability in unfolding the truths that respect the life to come.
They are all founded upon psychological laws of which we can judge
from the testimony of consciousness. And as to the claim of converse
with the spirits of the departed, it rests upon an asserted intromission
into the world of their residence, which we understand as merely an
opening of the spiritual senses, such as was accorded to the prophets
and holy men of old, and which involves nothing incredible to one
who admits the preternatural illapse that came upon their minds,
and enabled them to look through the curtain of flesh made, for the
time, transparent.
But on this point I do not, at present, propose to construct a plea.
It is not so much Swedenborg himself, as it is the intrinsic truth of
his teachings that stands before the bar of judgment.  Upon this you
are as competent to decide as upon the propoundings of any other
system which appeals to Scripture and reason. If your verdict is
adverse, it will be for reasons which stand definitely before your own
mind, and which you will be able, with equal explicitness, to assign
for'the satisfaction, or, at least, the consideration, of others. Such
reasons I have a great curiosity to see "set forth in order," especially
by such an "excellent Theophilus," as I have always been happy to
recognize in yourself.
Yours, &c.
THE END.