462

MR. BARRETT'S REPLY TO MR. MASON'S REJOINDER.

(Repository, p. 116.) What, our New Church doctrine of the Trinity not practical! Or less practical than the doctrine of a duality-the mere offspring of self-derived intelligence! What a confession to come from a New Churchman! And does not our friend's own confession of the more practical character of his view of the Trinity prove conclusively that some serious error on this subject has imbedded itself in his mind? All doctrine has relation to life; and all true doctrine is and must be practical. Its practical character is one of the best evidences of the truth of any doctrine, while the opposite character must be received as evidence of something quite opposite to the truth. I submit that the view of the Trinity which Mr. Mason has set himself so earnestly to oppose, is eminently practical. Its practical bearing has deeply impressed me from the first, so that I was led to devote to this branch of the subject not less than sixteen full pages, in my letters to Mr. Beecher, not entirely, I trust, without success.

"Thus

per

But to pursue Mr. Mason's duality notion a step further:— Swedenborg," says he, "presents to the mind only two objects of ception, when he says 'God is Divine Good, from whom proceeds Divine Truth;' [to my mind there are three objects distinctly presented, Good, Truth, and their Proceeding] God and the Spirit of God are thus presented in the Old Testament as two distinct objects, which I have therefore called a duality, for as such the Jews must have perceived it.” (Repos., p. 116.) I say nothing here of Mr. Mason's inconsistency in declaring my view to be "a Pagan or Jewish Trinity," as he has repeatedly done, and here asserting that the Jews must have perceived God as a duality—not as a trinity at all. Let that pass. I invite the reader's careful attention to the elements which constitute Mr. Mason's original Divine Duality-that Duality which existed, according to his view, before the Incarnation. These constituent elements he declares to be Divine Good and Divine Truth. Now, if we add to these elements that "new or third element" which he says was "introduced" into the Divine Nature eighteen hundred years ago, (see Repos., p. 370.) we shall have Mr. Mason's Christian Trinity. And this "new element," he says, "was the Glorified Humanity." Taking his Divine Duality, then, and adding thereto his "third element," we shall have, as the three elements now constituting his Trinity, the Divine Good, the Divine Truth, and the Glorified Humanity. I know that this is not the kind of Trinity in which Mr. Mason professes to believe; but is my arithmetic at fault here? Is not this kind of Trinity a fair necessary inference from his own admitted belief about the ancient Divine Duality, and the third element latterly "introduced" into the Divine Nature? In reaching this con

clusion have I in any way perverted or handled unfairly Mr. Mason's language? If not, then is it not plain that there exists a degree of confusion in his mind on this great subject with which he ought not to be satisfied? When there is such palpable inconsistency-such irreconcileable and pointed antagonism in his own views, should he not at least suspect that all is not right?—that he is mistaken somewhere?

Mr. Mason says "it is really impossible to endeavour to UNDERSTAND the Trinity as explained by Mr. Barrett "without its assuming a ridiculous aspect." (Repos., p. 64.) The Trinity, as I have explained it, is a Trinity of Love, Wisdom, and Operation in the One and only Lord, corresponding to the heat, light, and their proceeding operation in the natural sun. And what there is in the aspect of such a Trinity to awaken ridicule in any serious mind, is something that passes my comprehension. And it is still more unaccountable that this view should wear any such ridiculous aspect to the mind of one who can believe that God was once dual and is now trinal in His nature; that once He existed without a body, but in due time took on a body, which He still retains. It was such ideas, put forth by Mr. Mason, that I pronounced "scarcely less irrational than the old dogma of three Persons in one God." Yet see how strangely my meaning has been perverted in a note on page 66 of the Repository, which makes me pronounce Mr. Mason's "belief in a Trinity" irrational! Could this be from any misapprehension of my meaning? Let others decide.

Mr. Mason believes that the Holy Spirit had no existence prior to the glorification of the assumed Humanity; and repeatedly does he refer to John vii. 39, in support of such belief. (See Repos., p. 65.) Referring to the time of our Lord's sojourn on earth, he says "Then the Holy Spirit was not." His meaning is, that there was then no such element in the Divine Nature as that signified by the Holy Spirit. I submit that Mr. Mason misunderstands and misinterprets this text; (John vii. 39.) that the Holy Spirit was an element in the Triune God, existed before the Incarnation, and from eternity. For, did not the angel, who announced to Mary the advent of our Saviour, say to her, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee"? (Luke i. 35.) How could the Holy Spirit come upon her at a time when, according to Mr. Mason, there was no Holy Spirit? It is also said, in the same chapter, that "Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit when she heard the salutation of Mary." (Luke i. 41.) The obvious meaning of the text referred to in John, is that the impartation of Divine Truth, through the medium of angels and spirits, or that peculiar dispensation of the Spirit which the world now enjoys, was not and could not be

66

vouchsafed until the Human was Glorified; agreeable to the rendering of our common English version-"The Holy Spirit was not yet given,” &c. And this too agrees with Swedenborg. The reason,” he says, "why it is said that the HOLY SPIRIT was not yet, because JESUS was not yet glorified, is, because the Lord, when He was in the world, Himself taught Divine Truth; but when He was glorified, as was the case after His resurrection, He taught it by angels and spirits. That holy principle which proceeds from the Lord, and flows in by angels and spirits with man, whether manifestly or not manifestly, is the Holy Spirit." (A. C. 9818) Does this look as if Mr. Mason's understanding of this text were the correct one? On the contrary, it shows that it was the peculiar dispensation or impartation of the Spirit that was not before the Human was Glorified. Besides, if there was absolutely no Holy Spirit, that is, no element in the Divine Being signified by these terms, before the Glorification, and no Son, i. e. no element signified by this term, before the Incarnation (both of which Mr. Mason believes), then what was that ancient Divine Duality of which our friend makes frequent mention? If two essentials were added to the Divine Nature eighteen hundred years ago, and God existed as a Duality before that time (as Mr. Mason insists), then, according to our common arithmetic, which declares that "two and two make four," my opponent should believe not in a Divine Trinity now, but in a Divine Quaternity—four essentials instead of three. The new elements which have latterly been "introduced" (if they existed not from eternity, then they must have been created) are the Divine Form or Body (the Son), and the Divine Proceeding (the Holy Spirit). Therefore, God must have existed originally as a Divine Soul merely, without any Divine Form or Proceeding-i. e. if Mr. Mason really holds to a Trinity now. But if to a Quaternity, which clearly results from the addition of two new elements to the original Duality, then there must have been, prior to the Incarnation, a Divine Soul, and-will Mr. Mason tell us what else?

Have I here taken any undue advantage of our friend's admissions? Have I in any way perverted the meaning of his language, or treated unfairly any of his statements? I certainly have not intended to do so, nor am now conscious of having thus offended. And if I have not, then whose view of the Trinity, when critically examined, comes nearest to "assuming a ridiculous aspect"-Mr. Mason's or mine? Let the candid reader decide.

I had said, in a communication to the Herald,-" When the Father is used to designate the Divine Being as a person, undoubtedly the whole Trine is to be understood as included under that designation;

and the same may be said of the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Quoting this, Mr. Mason comments upon it thus :-" Indeed, then we may say the Father has the whole Trine, as a Person,'-the Son has the whole Trine, as a Person,'-and the Holy Spirit has the whole Trine, as a Person; but what is this but the revival of the doctrine of three Divine Persons in God"? Now, suppose I should preach a sermon, in which I should make mention of Father, God, Jehovah, Lord, Redeemer, Saviour, Christ, and should advise my audience that by each of these names I meant to designate the Supreme Being as a Person. I imagine Mr. Mason among my hearers, and afterwards going away and sorrowfully proclaiming that Mr. Barrett believes in seven personal gods! Or, to quote from his article in the February Repository-"This is what Mr. B. has said: what he does mean I know not." I do not care to characterise criticism like this, your readers must judge of it for themselves.

In the same number of the Repository, Mr. Mason advises his readers that "Mr. Barrett's papers, printed in the Cincinnati New Church Herald, had been ineffectually offered previously to the New Jerusalem Messenger, of New York, whose editor had expressed approbation of the view of the Trinity opposed to that of Mr. Barrett." Let me here advise Mr. Mason that the papers to which he refers were not refused admission into the columns of the Messenger because of any alleged or presumed incorrectness in my view of the Trinity. On the contrary, the editor of that paper, whom no one here would suspect of any very strong leaning towards myself, personally stated to me, in a private conversation, that, after publishing the extracts he did from Mr. Mason's article, he took up and carefully read through my letters to Beecher; and that he could not discover, and, indeed, did not think that there was any just and sufficient ground for Mr. Mason's attack upon the letters. Such was the frank confession of no partial witness certainly, a confession which a careful perusal of the work assailed compelled him to make. And if at first he "expressed approbation of the view opposed to that presented in my letters," doubtless the reason was because he had not sufficiently examined the letters, or sufficiently weighed the subject therein discussed; and was only too ready to endorse whatever might be said or written in opposition to their author. But whatever be the explanation, it is certain that the editor of the Messenger, after reading the "letters," confessed to me privately that he saw in them no sufficient ground for Mr. Mason's attack. And I believe all who are endowed with even a tolerable sense of justice, would say that he certainly ought to have made that confession public,

seeing that he had in the outset virtually approved of Mr. Mason's strictures.

There are a few other things in Mr. Mason's last two communications which I had intended to notice, but I let them pass, believing that I have already said sufficient; and more than I wish there had been need of saying.

Orange, N. J., July 13th, 1861.

B. F. BARRETT.

THE INFLUENCE OF MATERIAL OBJECTS UPON THE MIND.

(Concluded from page 394.)

It cannot with certainty be said, that any two persons who might be set together experience like duration, inasmuch as their corporeal frames may not equally transmit those sensations upon which the apprehension of time depends; and further, we really do not know that there are any two persons in the world who experience precisely the same amount of time during an hour, even when they are both idle, or similarly occupied. The so-called apparent decrease or increase of duration sometimes experienced, is a man's real sense of time, although the generality of persons then experience that amount of duration tallying with that expressed by clocks, the position of the sun, and other objects and phenomena; or at any rate the variations are so small, that they hesitate not to refer to these standards as things, as near as they can judge, shewing the duration or amount of time they are conscious of having elapsed, or, which is the same thing, they have experienced, for everthing experienced is real to him who is the subject of the condition. Time is altogether a relative condition, so that when a man declares a certain season to have passed with him shorter than ordinarily, it should not be said that this is only appearance, inasmuch as the duration generally experienced by the whole of mankind, may, with equal right, be similarly termed, the only difference being that the latter condition is universal and usual, whereas the former is occasional and restricted.

All experience is real, and therefore the testimony of consciousness or memory should always be set down as what is or was, not what appears or has appeared. Supposing that the sensational differences alluded to exist, the idea may the more readily be extended to the animal kingdom generally. It is deserving of observation that man is too much accustomed to consider all life as similar in nature to his own, while