:

exclamation," My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." It is thus that the Tri-personal creed usually explains the passages in which inferiority or imperfection is ascribed to the Son its advocates assure us, that such statements relate to his Human Nature only, to which they impute, upon occasion, a completely distinct consciousness. Thus when the Lord says, "Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father; " they tell us, that the Son is here only mentioned in reference to the Lord's Human Nature, which they thus represent to be positively ignorant of things which his Divine Nature knows. Ought they not then to view the present subject in the same light, and to allow our explanation to be completely satisfactory, when we say, that the unglorified part of the Lord's Human Nature (a distinction of which they are ignorant) at times had perceptions of its own, quite distinct from those which belonged to his Divine Nature also; and that they alone spoke in the dying exclamation?

But I apprehend, that for the sake of exalting the merit of our Lord's sufferings, the Tri-personalists' creed will compel them to forego this alone consistent and satisfactory explanation. They will then allege, that owing to the union of a Divine Person with a human form, the perceptions of the mere man were communicated to the God, so that the Divine Person knew no other than that it felt all that the Human Nature felt, and suffered and died with it; whence it follows, that it was as much the Divine Person as the Human Nature which exclaimed, 66 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," those words being addressed to another Divine Person. But can any possibly think, that this explanation has any advantage above ours? Must not every one see that it is incumbered with "mysteries," and completely inexplicable ones, from which ours is free? Our creed considers the perceptions of the Divine and of the unglorified Human Natures, in the compound Person of Jesus Christ while in the world, to be quite distinct, and to be distinctly expressed, so that it was the mere unglorified Human Nature alone which suffered, despaired, and died; but the Tri-personal creed considers the perceptions of the Divine and merely Human Natures in the compound Person of Jesus Christ to be undistinguishably blended, so that a Divine Person as well as a human actually suffered, despaired, and, to his own perceptions, died. The creed of the writer I follow, as we have seen above, represents the Divine Person of Jesus Christ as possessing in himself "those attributes which are designated as essential and incommunicable, namely, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence:" yet it considers that his own omni

potence and omniscience were now so extinguished by the weakness and ignorance of his human nature, that he both felt unable to deliver himself, and despaired of being delivered by the other Divine Person, his Father.

Look at these positive "mysteries," candid reader, and judge whether they are preferable to the satisfactory solution of all seeming mysteries which our doctrines present. Either the Divine and Human Natures, which both doctrines regard as combined in the person of Jesus Christ, had distinct perceptions or they had not: If they had, and the Tri-personal doctrine admits it in this instance as in others, then, according to both doctrines, it was the Human Nature alone which exclaimed, "My God, my God. why hast thou forsaken me?" and their view of this subject is precisely the same as they object to in us: If their doctrine affirms that they had not, or not in this instance, then it maintains the far more difficult supposition, of a suffering, despairing, and dying God. Thus they must either explain the seeming difficulty, just as we do, or must substitute for it a real difficulty, which is truly insurmountable. The writer I follow, with many more, falsely charges Swendenborg * with reviving the doctrine of Sabellius and the other ancient Patripassians. The charge, even if it were true as it is false, would come with an ill grace from modern Tri-personalists, who are Deopassions in the strictest sense of the word.t

It may also be worth remarking, that, in the dying exclamation, Jesus does not address the Divine Essence by the term Father, but by that of Gods. Thus, even upon the doctrine of more Divine Persons or God than one, it would be reasonable to conclude, that this was an address of the mere Human Nature to the Divine Nature or Person hypostatically united with it, rather than that it was an address of the Divine and Human Nature of Jesus unitedly to another Divine Person.

That the Lord, while in the world, had distinct perceptions in the distinct parts of his constitution, may be inferred from the very different language which he uttered at his crucifixion and death, as recorded by Matthew and Mark, compared with Luke and John; whose very different statements can scarcely be reconciled upon any other supposition, than they express the perceptions of Jesus in the distinct regions of his human mind. Thus, while Matthew and Mark relate only the sense of separation from the Divine Essence experienced by the lowest unglorified part of his Human Nature, Luke gives only the * P. 10.

For a complete refutation of the charge against the New Church of Sabellianism, and for proof that the common doctrine is Deopassian, see the Appendix to this work, No. II.

f*

confidence of approaching complete union with the Divine Essence with which the interior part of his Human Nature looked to the pure Divinity; whilst John neither notices the sense of separation perceived by the ultimates of his Human Nature, nor the confidence of approaching entire union felt by the interiors of that Nature, but only the consciousness of union already begun enjoyed in its inmost part. Thus whilst in Matthew and Mark Jesus expostulates with his God, and in Luke relies on his Father, in John he makes no address to, nor even mentions, his God, or Father, at all, but speaks entirely of and from himself.*

That then in Jesus which suffered, despaired, and died, was the merely human nature only, the mere Son of Mary, and not the Son of God. This was not a separate person from the Father, since what any human being takes from his mother, considered separately from what he takes from his father, does not constitute a separate person, but only a part of his person : yet it was not strictly one with the Father, much less was it, as the cavils of our opponents suppose us to affirm, the same as the Father; for it was merely human, and not yet divine. It, however, was rendered Divine by means of this last temptation and passion of the cross, being entirely renewed, in consequence from the Divinity within. Thus, after the resurrection, the whole of the Humanity or Son was one with the Divinity or Father; but it never became the same as the Father: as man's body is one with his soul, forming with it one man in one person, though it is not the same, but quite a distinct part of his constitution. This view of the subject clears from all difficulty the Lord's dying exclamation, and all the other circumstances relating to his state of humiliation, as completely as the Newtonian theory of the universe clears from all difficulty the phenomena of the motions of the heavenly bodies: to treat therefore such a view with derision, is to imitate the rustic, who believes, from the appearance to his senses, that the sun and stars move round the earth, and ridicules the philosopher who would convince him of the fallacy.

9. "Who [Christ] being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." The writer I follow asks, "how a man must proceed in order to sit down on his own right hand? The Saviour (he adds) sits down on the right hand of the majesty on high; and yet, *On this remarkable circumstance, see the Plenary Inspiration, &c., p. 588-590.

+ Heb. i. 3.

according to the Baron's doctrine, there is no right hand on the supreme throne in heaven besides his own. Here is another mystery of the Swedenborgian manufacture."* Here, again is an open disply of Tritheism. We shall soon see who is here the manufacturer of mysteries. It is assumed, we see, that the right hand here mentioned is literally a right hand. On this assumption his whole argument proceeds: and then he distinctly presents to our imagination, a Divine Personal Being sitting on the throne of heaven, with another Divine Personal Being sitting near his right hand. Did ever the polytheism of Tri-personalism more openly take off the mask? Was ever the belief in two or more Gods more distinctly avowed? The avower proceeds: "It is true the Baron was aware of the text before us, and has given an explanation of it, such as it is: but they who can be pleased with it are not ill to please; for it appears to me to be void of all solid argument, and frivolous." Was the writer aware, that among those who have been pleased with the "frivolus explanation adopted by Swendenborg, are some of the most eminent authorities of the Anglican Church? If it is to be condemned as "void of all solid argument" when stated by Swedenborg, let us see whether any more solidity will be allowed it when it comes in the name of Bishop Pearson. "First," says that learned writer, in the proper article of his Exposition of the Creed, "we must consider what is the right hand of God in the language of the Scriptures: Secondly, what is it to sit down at that right hand. God is pleased to descend to our capacity, and not only to speak by the mouths of men, but also, after the manner of men, he expresses that which is in him by some analogy with that which belongs to us. The hands of man are those organical parts which are most active, and executive of our power; by those the strength of our body is expressed, and most of our natural and artificial actions are performed by them. From whence the power of God, and the exertion and execution of that power, is signified by the hand of God. Moreover, since, by a general custom of the world, the right hand is more used than the left, and by that general use acquireth a greater firmitude and strength, therefore the right hand of God signifieth the exceeding great and infinite power of God." The Bishop gives two other significations of the right hand of God; according to one of which it also implies the glorious majesty of God," and according to the other "celestial happiness and perfect felicity." He then proceeds: "Now as to the first acceptation of the right hand of God, Christ is said to sit down at the right hand of the Father, in regard of that absolute power and dominion which he hath ob* P. 30.

tained in heaven; whence it is expressly said, 'Hereafter, ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power' (Matt. xxvi. 64, Mark xiv. 62, Luke xxii. 69)." As to the phrase to sit this, he says, "prescinding from the corporal posture of session, may signify no more than habitation, possession, permanence, and continuance; as the same word in the Hebrew and Greek languages often signifies." They who will not receive Swendenborg's explanation supported by such authority, must be "ill to please" indeed: but when it is accepted, what becomes of the heathenish idea, of a side-by-side partnership in the heavenly throne?

The above are all the texts which the writer I here follow, has quoted, to establish the notion of the separation as to Person between Jesus and the Father: I trust it has now sufficiently appeared, that they more truly establish their Unity, and confirm the grand truth, that the whole Trinity is centered in the single Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.--To add, however, to their force, for his purpose, their selector makes this observation:* "There are more than a hundred texts in the New Testament, a great part of which are in St. John's gospel, all bearing much the same meaning with those noticed above." This is very true: there are a great many texts bearing much the same meaning as the above, and thus contributing to illustrate and confirm the New Jerusalem doctrine respecting the Divine and Human Natures in the person of Jesus Christ, and the progressive glorification, or deification, of the latter. It is the New Jerusalem doctrine alone which can explain such texts in agreement with "the analogy of the whole Bible and unbiassed reason." Our Tripersonalist gives a page of references to all the passages he could find which contain the words "Father," "Son," " "Son of God," or "Son of man." But to what purpose are such references? Who requires to be convinced that the New Testament contains those terms? The question is, not about the existence of those terms, but the sense of them; and it has now, I apprehend, been sufficiently seen, that they are not the titles of separate Divine Persons or Gods, but of the Divine and Human Natures united in One Person, which is that of the Lord Jesus Christ; that this union, while he was in the world, was in progress only towards completion, whence the occasional appearances of separation between them; but that, at his resurrection and ascension, the union was perfected; whence, the Human Nature being thenceforth also Divine, and with the Divine Essence an Indivisible One, he ever liveth and reigneth the Supreme and Only Deity,-"God over all, blessed for evermore." t