words some draw this meaning,-that as Moses taught the Israelites by ceremonial shadows of better things to come, his religion was unsubstantial, and, as to intrinsic value, empty: but Jesus Christ, the Great Teacher, being come, he taught nothing but substantial and necessary truths respecting God, &c. Therefore St. Paul is pleased to describe the superiority of Christ over Moses by the text before us: as if he should say, 'in Christ's dispensation there are no empty shadows, no unsubstantial ceremonies; but on the contrary there is a fullness of doctrine, example, revelation, spirit, wisdom, sacrifice, merit, love, and goodness. This construction of the text is not unworthy of consideration." So thinks the extenuator; dost thou, reader, think so too? The text, 1emember, with the verse preceding, says: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Is not the above comment an open attempt to substitute mere emptiness for fullness, and to "spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ? "

Conscious of this, its proposer tries again. "Others," he states, "say that St. Paul had reference to the divine appearance between the cherubim on the mercy-seat, that appearance being but in vision, seen but seldom, and then only by one person, the high priest. This manner of the divine appearance to men, they say, was rare and scanty; and to this, therefore, Christ is contrasted, because he derived from the Father a plenitude or fullness of the Divine attributes, the Spirit without measure, and all moral perfections in an infinite degree," &c. This is a little better; but do you find, reader, any reference in the Apostle's words to the rare and scanty manner of the divine appearance in the mercy seat, to satisfy you that he only refers to a certain fullness of the divine attributes in the person of Jesus? Does any imputed fullness of divine attributes, communicated to Jesus as a separate person, at all come up to the idea conveyed by the declaration, that all the fullness, not of divine attributes merely, but of the Godhead itself the whole Divinity-dwelt in him bodily, in a personal form? but the Apostle, it seems, like his Divine Master, was apt, when HE was in his theme, to run into the use of Hyperbole or Exageration; wherefore his meaning equally requires to be diluted into insignificance, by the application of Meiosis or Extenuation.

*P. 18.

66

The opponent, affecting to consider that these truly futile expositions of the text evince the unsoundness of our apprehension of it, proceeds thus: "The futility of the Swedenborgian doctrine respecting the phrase, all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,' will be still more apparent when it is considered, that nearly the same language is used in reference to ordinary saints, as in these words: That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend, with all saints, what is the length, and breadth, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge; that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.' Here, then, we find nearly the same phrase repeated respecting the saints, as that which is now the subject of our animadversions."* Instead of being only nearly the same phrase, had it been quite the same phrase, such an argument from it would have been sufficiently answered by our remarks above, on the words, Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect." It would be impossible to argue, in the one case, that God dwells in the saints in the same manner as the Divine Essence dwells in the person of Jesus Christ, without arguing, in the other, that the perfection of the saints is the same as the perfection of their Heavenly Father. But in reality the Apostle's wish, "that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God," does not bear a near, but only a remote resemblance to his declaration, that "in Christ dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." In the one case, the God whose fullness is spoken of is Christ; and Christ is mentioned as dwelling in the hearts of the saints by faith; in the other case, God is not mentioned, but the Godhead-the whole of Divinity; and this is not spoken of as dwelling in the heart of Christ by faith; but all the fullness thereof-the entire Godhead, is declared to dwell in him bodily; which is equivalent to saying, that his Body or Person is the Body or Person of the whole Divine Nature. Here is a wide difference indeed! But still less are the passages parallel as they stand in the original for, in that respecting the saints, nothing is there said of their being "filled with all the fullness of God; " but, literally translated it is, "that ye might be filled unto all the fullness of God; plainly evincing the Apostle's meaning here to be the same as when he speaks, in the next chapter, of the saints as coming" unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." To be filled unto the fullness of God, or to attain to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, is, obviously, to reach that perfection in the spiritual † Verse 13.

*P. 18, 19

life for which God or Christ designs us, to be replenished, according to the full measure of our finite capacities, with all heavenly graces, to receive to the utmost, of his fullness, and grace for grace.* How could we receive of his fullness, had it not "pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell?†" How then could the fullness of which we receive from him, be all the fulness that is in him? The fact that all our fullness is received from him, proves, not that there is no more or other fullness in him than is received by us, but that in him most truly, dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, that he is the Personal Form of the whole Divine Nature; whence, of his fullness, we receive a portion.

The extenuator might have learned far better to understand this subject from his Concordance, than from the "learned divines" of the Unitarian school whom he has followed.

·

"Whereas," says honest Cruden on the word fullness, "men are said to be filled with the Holy Ghost, as John the Baptist (Luke i. 15) and Stephen (Acts vi. 5); this differs from the fullness of Christ in three respects: 1. Grace and the Spirit be in others by participation; as the moon hath her light from the sun, rivers their waters from the fountain, and the eye its sight from the soul; but in Christ they be originally, naturally, and of himself. 2. In Christ they be infinite and above measure (John iii. 34); but in the saints by measure, according to the gifts of God (Eph. iv. 16). The moon is full of light, but the sun is more full; rivers are full of waters, but the sea is more full. 3. The saints cannot communicate their graces to others; whereas the gifts of the Spirit be in Christ, as a head or fountain, to impart them to others; We have received of his fullness' (John i. 16). It is said (Col. ii. 9), 'That the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily; that is, the whole nature and attributes of God are in Christ, and that, really, essentially, or substantially; and also personally, by nearest union, as the soul dwells in the body, so that the same person who is man is God also." This is a just account of the matter. And as the Godhead, which thus dwells personally in Christ, as the soul in the body, is not a part of the Godhead merely, one of three persons, into which according to the fictions of men, the fullness of the Godhead is divided, but is, according to the express declaration, all the fullness of the Godhead; it follows that this declaration of Cruden's is true in the fullest and most ample sense; and further, that as nothing but a truly Divine Body can be the abode of the whole of the Divine Essence, Jesus Christ is in proper Person, as to Soul and Body, the One Only and Infinite God.

The objector here adds some passages in which God is said to dwell in men, to draw from them the inference, that as the dwelling of God in men does not make them one person with God, no more is this the case when all the fullness of the Godhead is said to dwell bodily in Christ; but it is needless to say any more than has been said already, to prove, in his own language, that this argument is a " downright sophism." So far from any argument being thence to be drawn against the unity as to person of Jesus and the Father, such texts as these, in fact, strongly confirm it. For it has already appeared, that the God who dwells in the saints is Jesus Christ, by virtue of the spirit communicated from him, and that they have no intercourse with the inmost Deity called the Father, except as this dwells in the Divine Humanity of Jesus Christ. Thus we find Jesus saying, in his address to the Father just before the completion of his glorification, "the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them; I in them and thou in me;"* and many similar statements might be mentioned. Thus it is obvious, that it is from Jesus Christ alone that the saints immediately receive all that makes them such; and that Jesus Christ is able to impart it, because the whole Divine Essence, called the Father dwells bodily in him. Thus his dwelling in the saints is not of the same kind as the Father's dwelling in him, but is an image of it; for no one will pretend that the saints actually receive the whole fullness of Jesus Christ, so that he has no existence out of them, as is repeatedly affirmed respecting the dwelling in Jesus Christ of the Father. And as the fullness of the reception by saints of Jesus Christ is infinitely inferior to the fullness of his reception of the Father, it follows again, that their union with him is not of the same kind as his union with the Father, but is an image of it; just in the same manner as the perfection of the saints is not of the same kind, but is only an image of, the perfection of their Heavenly Father; and as man himself is not God but is only an image of God.

As our extenuator has succeeded so ill in destroying the meaning of these three conclusive texts of Scripture, he at last betakes himself to his best refuge, the plea of mystery, and employs, as noticed above,t the remaining four pages of his present Section in deprecating all enquiry, and extolling ignorance as a Christian priveledge. Here, therefore it is quite needless to follow him. The same, doubtless, is true of error in regard to religious doctrine, as the Lord affirms of evil in heart and life. Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light lest his deeds should be reproved," But it is somewhat curious, that, after his own disclosures, he should John iii. 20.

* John xvii. 22, 23.

† P. 369.

have penned the following sentence : "It were much to be wished that men, even good men, were more cautious and reserved, in their language respecting the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, than they commonly are."* Of course, then, he intended to practice the caution and reserve which he so earnestly recommends. He is sensible that Tripersonalists have much to conceal. And yet we have seen that he has so far let out the interior sentiments of his mind or his creed upon the subject, as to evince that, in his ideas, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three separate Gods; may we not conclude, then, that had he not aimed at being "cautious and reserved," he would openly have used the very words?

Since then these three important texts stand quite uninjured by the efforts to deprive them of meaning, but, the more they are examined, are more demonstrably seen to be plain declarations of the most important doctrines; and since, as is obvious, in agreement with these texts only can be understood the other texts which speak of the Father and the Son, so as to be in harmony with those numerous passages which affirm the strict Unity of the Divine Being; it follows that we are to believe, what these three texts so plainly affirm, that the Lord Jesus Christ is one Person with the Father, the whole Godhead dwelling personally in him, as the soul in the body. Abundant other proof of the same grand doctrine has been given above; and the only portion of the Scripture evidence that the writer I follow has ventured to attack, has now been shown to be invulnerable to all his objections. It is eternally true, as the Lord declares of himself, that He and the Father are One, and that he that hath seen Him, hath seen the Father; and, as Paul declares of the same Glorious Being, that in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead, bodily. No attempt has ever been made to explain these texts to any but the New Church sense, which did not wear the character of the most miserable subterfuge, most palpable violence. And how must our conviction of the truth they teach be strengthened, when we find, as has now indisputably appeared, that Tritheism. lurks in the interior thought of those who deny it,-that when, in the warmth of argument, they forget their wonted caution and reserve, they allow the triple-headed monster openly to display his dreadful form,-that the only alternative for those, who, asserting a Trinity, deny that it is centered in the Single Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, is to acknowledge in heart, if not commonly with the lips, three several Gods!

* P. 21.