Benjamin F Barrett LETTERS on THE DIVINE TRINITY New York 1860

7/28/2019 Benjamin F Barrett LETTERS on THE DIVINE TRINITY New York 1860

1/148

Pr 1 c., c;f t ~ ~ 1: , : v r s 1 t yLH;u ary

-- - --- -:- - --- - -- -:IILETTERSON

THE DIVINE TRINITY,ADDRESSED TO

HENRY WARD BEECHER,BY

B. F. BARRETT.

"Let oor Idea or the One Inftnfte Penooo be loet, or binned and dlulpllted,and there is darlrneH or lurid t i l i ~ h t on all the landscapeof the mind."-&ar1."Our properly ortbodo'I' teachPr1t and churches, whHe profPHing three per-aon11, al"'o retain the verbal profe1111ion of one person . They 1uppose tbemsehe1

really to hold that God I one perooo. And yet they most certainly do not; the1o o ~ y confuAe their undPrstanding. and call the ir confuRion faftb."-Bwlndl ."A t thif day, with ref'pect to the Divine Trinity, human reuon la boundlike o. man bandrufTed and fettered in prison, a.nd may be compared to a vettiJ\'lrgio buroO


2/148


3/148

0. A.. ALVORD, PRINTER, NEW' YORK.


4/148

CONTENTS.

J>BUJ.Oa . 6LErrER I.

Tri Personalism and its Logical Coll8eqnenoe. 0LETl'ER II.

Where to look for an Image of the Divine Trinity. . . . . . . . . . . . 29LEITER i l l .

Explanation of the Trinity In Man which Images the Trinity InGod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

LEITER IV.Further Evidence and Illustrations of thti Trinity. . . . . 66

LETl'ER V.Practical Bearings of the New Doctrine........ . 82

LEITER VI.Scripture Confirmation-Meaning of Father and Sou . . 100

LETl'ER VII.Further Testimony from Scripture-Meaning of the Holy Spirit-Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

332l80


5/148


6/148

PREFACE.

The following " L e t t e r s ~ were first publisted in a monthlyreligious magazine, ("THE SwEDENBORGIAN,") under the editorialcharge of the author, and were C'.>ntinucd through seven succrasivemonths. 'fhe immediate occasion of them, as will a p ~ r from thefirst of the series, was a paragraph in Mr Bcecher's interesting,able, and. for the most part, truly admirable sermon on "Understanding Gud." published in T!te Independent" of March 3lst,1859. .An extended notice of this remarkable sermon appeared inthe last June issue of" THE SwEDENBORGIAN"; and some nine orten pages were therein copied from it with high praise-the Editorcommending, as worthy of special admiration, Mr. Beecher's "practical test" by which all our views of the Divine Being are to betried, and his eloquent advocacy of the distinct personality ofGodand the divinity of Jesus Christ. The same notice commencedwith the following paragraph: "Among the encouraging religiollll8b'peCts of the times, are the indications in several quarters that thegreat Central Doctrine of our religion-the doctrine concerningthe Lord-is about to be discussed anew, and to. undergo a thoroughreexamination." And now, while I write-ecarce a month alter


7/148

vi PREFACE,

the publication of my last "Letter"-! learn, through the news-papers, that an extraordinary degTee of interest is being awakenEdupon this subject of the Trinity ; that it is enlisting the attentionof some of the most distinguished clergymen iu uur land, andundergoing a discussion which promises to be more thorough andexhaustive than any to which it has hitherto been subji:cted. .A.single issue of a weekly religious paper, just received, tells me ofone distinguished D.D., whose recent avowal of his belief in thedoctrine of the Trinity " is producing a new discuRSion of thatquestion" ; of another, not less distinguished, who has just delivered a "most effective" discourse upon the subject, for w h o ~ cpublication " a desire has been expressed in many quarters" ; ofstill another, who " is about to publish a work with the title, 'TheFathers of the Primitive Church opposed to the Trinity'" ; and of"Lectures on the Trinity," now in the course ofdelivery by one ofthe ablest and most popular ministers in our country, which" areto be published by the request of a large uumbt.'.r of persons."

Seeing, then, how deep and widespread is the interest whichthis question is awakening among Christians at the pret1ent t i m ~understanding, also, bow central the doctrine is, and how importantto any system of theology is a correct view of it-knowing fullwell, too, how great and numerous are the difficulties with whichthe old,and popular doctrine is embarrassed-and believing thatthe view presented in these " Letters" will be found, on carefulexamination, to be at once intelligible, rational, and scriptural, Ihave no apology to offer for presenting them to the public in tht1irpresent form-conscious though I am of their many defects. l thinkUiey ape needed, and will be found useful in this emergency ; otherwise I should not publish them. I sincerely hope that, under God,

Diyitized by Google


8/148

PREFACE. viithey may be the means of bringing some bumble w1d strugglingsouls to a state of rest in regard to this great doctrine, which, morethan all others, perhaps, has for centuries confused and perplexedthe min


9/148

viii PREFACE.nations, in the number or int.elligent Christians who cordially acceptthis New doctrine for the truth, is a sufficient reason why, it it benot true, the error should be exposed by fair and convincing argu-ment, and with friendly and charitable feeling. In our efforts toadvance the Master'6 cause, it is important that we strive never toforget the Master's spirit. B.F. B.

01lANGE, N. J., January 21, 1860.


10/148

LETTERSON

THE DIVINE TRINITY,ADDRESSED TO

HENRY WARD BEECHER .

LETTER I.TRlPERSON.A.LISM:-.A.ND ITS LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE.

REV. HENRY wARD BEECHER :MY DEAR Srn-In addressing to you a few thoughtsupon a lofty and momentous theme, I trust you will

pardon me for adopting a form which might seem toindicate a closer external intimacy between us thanreally exists. I will, however, confess to a stronginternal drawing towards you-to a sense of a certainspiritual proximity, which may not be particularlyflattering to you, but which is none the less real andpleasant to me. I have seldom listened to a sC'rmonby you, that did not awaken within me holier thoughts,and enkindle better feelings, purer desires, and noblerpurposes. I have seldom read an article from yourpen, from which I did not derive some rational entertainment, intellectual stimulus, or spiritual instruction-frequently all these in happy combination. Your

l*

o;g, ,,,,d by Google


11/148

10 LETTERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.

thoughts seem oftentimes my own, but always dressedin a garb richer far than my poor brain could furnish.It is, therefore, in obedience to a strong internalprompting, and because the epistolary style of addressseems to bring you nearer to me, that this style isadopted on the present occasion.

I f you have read the June number of the Swedenborgian, which was duly mailed to your address, youwill have seen how cordially I accept, and how heartily I commend nearly all your sermon on " Understanding God," published in the March 3lst issue of theIndependent. With a single but important exception,which I am now about to notice, that sermon contained what, to me, seemed a lucid and masterly presentation of the truth upon one of the loftiest and mostmomentous themes which the human mind can contemplate. As to the vastness of the subject-as to theimpossibility of fully comprehending or completelymeasuring the Infinite with our finite capacities-asto the means, or subjective condition, necessary to aright understanding of God-as to the practical testto be applied to whatever view of Him is adoptedas to what constitutes the essential and true greatnessof the Divine Being, His disinterested and all-embracing love-as to the importance of believing inand worshiping a personal God, and that God inhuman form, and the utter impossibility of conceivingof any being whatsoever" which has not a personality "-ns to the supreme and absolute divinity of theLord Jesus Christ, and the importance of believingin and worahiping Him as the manifested Jehovah,


12/148

TRlPERSONALISK ELUllNED. 11

" the Way, the Life, the Alpha, the Omega, the First,the Last "-as to the views upon each and all of thesesubjects as set forth in your sermon, I have not a wordof objection to offer. I accept them cordially as thetrue Bible views. They are the views, too, whichSwedenborg taught with great clearness a hundredyears ago, and which are now held by all New Churchmen. So that upon these points, you are doctrinallyof the New Church, or I am orthodox-no matterwhich way we phrase it.But there is one point in your sermon-and it seemsto me an important one-to which I now desire to callyour particular attention ; as I think your views onthis point, if I rightly apprehend the meaning of yourlanguage, are contrary to the truth, contrary to reasonand Scripture, and utterly inconsistent with otherparts of your otherwise admirable discourse. I referto your doctrine of the Divine Trinity as stated in thefollowing exceptionable paragraph :" I have only a word to add, and that is with reference to occurrences which have recently taken place.

I t befel me, not long ago, in writing a reply to a misapprehension of Christian brethren, to state that I hadno God but Christ; that there was an effluence risingfrom Christ which I was taught to call the Father ;and that there was a still more tenuous effluence whichI was taught to call the Holy Spirit. So far as thosemen who only lie in wait for occ'.l.Sion to find fault, areconcerned, I care nothing ; they would find fault underany circumstances. But let me remark to you, mypeople, that I understand almost literally, what I saidto be the truth. It was no slip of pen, nor infelicityof language. If there was error, it was in the sense


13/148

12 LE1TERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.

and not in the vehicle. I believe that there is Godthe Father ; I believe that there is God the Son ; andI beliPve that there is God the Holy Ghost. I believethat these are three beings, with separate and distinctunderstandings, with separate and distinct conscience,with separate and distinct will. I believe that Godthe lfathP.r, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghosthave a personality so separate that, if the fact of unityhad not been announced, the whole world would havebeen obliged to regard them as three Gods ; that is,to believe in tritheism. I should believe in tritheismdid I not find the simple statement in Scripture thatthese three personal Gods are one. I understand theirthree-fold personality as much as I understand the existence of three different friends. I t is the unity ofthem that I do not undmstand. Aforetime, the mys-tery of the Trinity was, how one could be three. Theemphasis was wrongly placed. The New Testamentteaches three persons. In my view, the unity of thesethree is an unexplained but pm!itively stated fact. -I believe that i t is taught in the New Testament thatthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God.In reasoning upon this, I do not suppose that they areone in the sense in which they are three, nor that theyare three in the sense in which they are one."Now, although you may agree with me, that it ispossible for even polytheists to be good men, yet youwould not, I think, seriously maintain that polytheismis true, or that it is a doctrine of the Christian Scriptures. Nor do I believe you would contend that it isa matter of small consequence, whether a Christianbelieves in one God or in more than one. As God isthe centre of the moral universe, so the doctrine concerning Him must be regarded as a cardinal doctrinein every system of theology. All subordinate doctrin


14/148

TRIPl\:RSONALISll EXAMINED. 13

must depend on this, and must be more or less shapedand colored by it. Aud probably the state of everyChristian worshipcr, could this matter be thoroughlyinquired into or opened up,-his state, I mean, as toclearness and strength of faith, and depth and tenderness of love,-would be found to depend very much onthe doctrine which he holds respecting the Object ofhis worship. If men believe in a proud, haughty,tyrannical God-in one who acts arbitrarily, or fromcaprice, and always with an eye to his own glory, asunregenerate men act-their moral and spiritual condition cannot fail to be disastrously affected by suchbelief. Or if they believe in a selfish, partial and vindictive God, the virus of this false belief will distillin bitter drops upon their hearts. And so, too, if theybelieve in more Gods than one, I should think theywould find themselves often painfully bewildered audstrangely confused. I should think the tendency ofsuch belief would be to distract the mind of the worshiper, to create doubt and sad perplexity at times,and in the end to weaken if it did not overthrow hisfaith. And this appears to be the opinion of menmore worthy to be heard on this subject t11111t myself,and whose opportunities of observing the effects of thepopular doctrine of a tri-personal God have been moreample than mine. One of your own denomination,one whom I have no doubt you respect and love,- thetalented and excellent Dr. Bushnell, writing of thosewho hold "this view of metaphysical tri-personality,''remarks that, " mournful evidence will be found that a.confused and painfully bewildered state is often pro-


15/148

14 LE'ITERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.

duced by it. They are," he continues, "practically atwork in their thoughts, to choose between the three ;some.times actually and decidedly preferring one toanother; doubting how to adjust their mind in worship ; uncertain, often, which of the three to obey;turning away, possibly, from one in a feeling of dreadthat might well be called aversion ; devoting them-selves to another, as the Romanist to his patron saint.This, in fact, is Polytheism, and not the clear, simplelove of God. There is true love in it, doubtless, butthe comfort of love is not here. The mind is involvedin a dismal confusion, which we cannot think of without the sincerest pity."*

The frankness and sincerity of this-coming as itdoes from a distinguished minister in a denominationthat profcsses to believe in a tri-personal God-no oneis better able to appreciate than yourself. In its candid,courageous, and manly tone, it reminds one of yourself-sounds very much like some of your own honest,straight-forward utterances. Yet I know that evenDr. Bushnell-much as you may respect and love him- i s no authority with you; nor should he be. I onlyquote h1- to show how wiser men than I-men evenin your own denomination-have thought and spokenon this great subject. But you bow with humility andcheerfulness to the authority of the Bible. And uponno one point is the teaching of the Bible more indisputable, I think, than upon the strict personal unity ofGod. I t affirms nothing with more clearness or em-phasis-no, not even the existence of the Divine Being-

o Bushnell's ' Go I in Christ." p. 134.


16/148

TRIPERSONA.LISK EXAJnNED. 15than that " the Lord our God is one Lord." .And thisyou admit as heartily as I do. Therefore it is unnecessary to argue the point. But how to reconcile thisadmission with the declarations in the paragraph ofyour sermon above quoted, is the difficulty. It is whatI confess myself utterly u n a ~ e to do. I t is what I donot think even you yourself, or any other mortal orimmortal being, can do. For you say : " I believe thatthere is God the Father ; I believe that there is Godthe Son ; and I believe that there is God the HolyGhost. I believe that these are three beings, withseparate and distinct understandings, with separateand distinct conscience, with separate and distinctwill." You also speak in the same paragraph of " thesethree personal Gods," and add, with a frankness andcandor that I greatly admire, "I understand theirthree-fold personality as much as I understand the existence of three different friends."Now in other parts of your sermon you have de-clared your belief in a pessmial, God, in contradis.tinction to that pantheistic view, which you justlycharacterize as " the theological annihilation of Godas a personal being ; " and you have combatted; witheven more than your usual force and eloquence, thatprevalent notion-falsely believed to be philosophical-which conceives of God" as an effluence of etber,diffused radiantly throughout the universe ; " while youhave rendered equally conspicuous the practical im-portance of believing in God as a Divine Person.Thus you say, truly," that no man can form any con-ception of God except as a Person. We cannot know


17/148

16 LE'ITERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.

Him in such a way as that He shall manifest Himselfto us, and abide with us, except as a living Person;not even as a personage, which means something morethan a person-nor in any way that sets before us animpersonal God, such as fancy imagines ; a vast diffusive power; the essence or the life of the universe;a spiritual vitality-ant all that trashy nonsense.I hold that such a view of God as this is waste mat-ter-mere fantastic moonshine.'' And as showing thepractical value which you attach to the belief in Godas a Divine Person, you further remark : " I do notsay that a philosophical conception of the elements ofthe Divine Nature is impossible ; but I do say thatsuch a conception is not one which the soul can use;it is not oue which ever produceR love. In otherwords, I do not believe that any man who thinks ofGod as an abstract being, having no resemblance towhat we are, ever has a God whom he fondly loves.. . . I stand up fearlessly and say that it is not inthe power of a human being to love that which doesnot come to .him as a person. . . . You can neverhave a God that you can take. hold of and say, 'MyLord -and my God,' or one that you can love, so longas you regard Him as a mystic something filling allspace, and having no personality." And you also tellus who, according to your belief, that personal God is.He is the risen Saviour-the glorified Christ. Thebest you can do is, "to give God the form of theglorified Jmms Christ." "We cannot," say you, "con-ceive of a being without a form; but it is not bestthat our imagination should have unbounded p1ay ;


18/148

TRI-PERSONALISM EXAHINED, l ' l

therefore there is given to us the person of JesusChrist, who is a fit form by which to conceive ofGod." Nor do you believe with Unitarians that JesusChrist was merely a messenger sent from God. Youbelieve that he was the manifested Jehovah-" Godwith us ." You "believe that one of the greatestelements of power is utterly cast away and lost, whenChrist is regarded as a messenger from God, and notas God Himself, manifest in the flesh." You believethat" it is the very God that beams out from Christ,and not a secondary and transmitted impression ofGod through a man." Therefore you worship Him as" the Alpha., the Omega, the First, the Last," and deemit right that we should give to Christ "all that thehuman soul can give to any being."Now I subscribe to these sentiments with all myheart. And I think that what you say is not onlytrue, but truth of great practical moment, and whichneeds to be particularly impressed upon the minds ofChristians at this time. But the force of this soundand excellent teaching seems to be greatly impaired,if not in a measure nullified, by the declarations in thatpart of your sermon to which I object. For consider :You first declare your belief in God as a DivinePerson. You maintain that He is not, a.nd cannot be,truly conceived of, otherwise than as a Person. Youinsist, too, on the importance of a belief in his person.ality ; and maintain that the Lord Jesus Christ is thatDivine Person. Yet, in the exceptionable paragraphupon which I am remarking, you state it as yourbelief that there are" three beings [God the Father,


19/148

18 LE'lTEBS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost] with separateand distinct understandings, with separate and dis-tinct conscience, with separate and distinct will"; andeven speak of" three personal Gods" whose " three foldpersonality" is as clear and distinct to your mind "asthe existence of three different friends ; " and you de-clare, " I should believe in tritheism did I not find thesimple statement in Scripture that these three personalGods are one." Pardon me, my brother, if I say, that,according to every fair interpretation of language,you do believe in tritheism. For, pray tell me whatelse than a belief in tritheism it is, to believe in threedivine beings with separate and distinct understandings, conscience, and will, and whose " three-fold personality" stands out as clear and distinct to your men-tal vision as the " existence of three different friends?"I f you really believe in God as a Divine Person-asa being in human form, so revealed or manifested inthe person of Jesus Christ-and if at the same timeyou think of three Divine Persons, as distinct one fromthe other as any " three different friends," do you notactually believe in three Gods, w h a t ~ v e r your lipsmay utter or your pen inscribe? Certainly you donot believe with your lips or your pen, but with yourmind; and your real belief on any and every subject,is according to the thought of your understanding onthat subject. So that if you think of three DivinePersons, it seems to me you must think of, and therefore believe in, three Gods ; and your mere oral orwritten declaration of a belief in one God does notmatter, nor in any way alter the case. You cannot,


20/148

TRIPERSONAHSJ( EXilUNED. 19I think, according to any honest and mtelligent useof language, declare your belief in the proper unityor God, or in one only Divine Person, and at the sametime affirm that you believe in three Divine Personswith separate and distinct understandings, conscienceand will, without justly exposing yourself to thecharge of the most palpable self-contradiction. Thetwo beliefs are utterly and forever irreconcilable. Ifwe think of a personal, God, we must either think (nomatter what we say) of one Person, or of more Persons than one ; and as we think, so we 1Jelieve. And

this latter thought or belief, I submit, is polytheism,however we may seek, by an ingenious use of wordsor phrases, to conceal the solemn fact from ourselvesor others.

Does this seem to you harsh or reproachful Ianguage? 1 do not intend it as such. I t is really themildest and kindest that I know how to use, whileseeking to make my thought on this subject, and whatseems to me your own inconsistency, plain. Nor haveI spoken more harshly here than some of your owndenomination when discussing the same theme. Yourestimable brother whom I have already quoted (Dr.Bushnell) remarks with characteristic candor: "A verylarge portion of the Christian teachers, together withthe general mass of disciples, undoubtedly hold threereal living persons, in the interior nature of God ;that is, three consciousnesses, wills, hearts, understandings "-precisely what I understand you to hold,according to a fair interpretation of that part of yoursermon which I am criticising. "But our properly


21/148

20 LETI'ERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.orthodox teachers and churches "- to quote furtherfrom the same excellent authority-"while professingthree persons, also retain the verbal profession of oneperson. They suppose themselves really to hold thatGod is one person. And yet they most certainly donot ; they only confuse their understanding and calltheir confusion faith. This, I affirm, not as speakingreproachfully, but as I suppose on the ground of sufficient evidence-partly because it cannot be otherwise, and partly because it visibly is not. No mancan asse.14f three persons, meaning three consciousnesses, wills, and understandings, and still have a.nyintelligent meaning in his mind when he asserts thatthey are yet one person."I repeat, then-not reproachfully or unkindly byany means, but with a view of leading you to seriousreflection on this s u ~ j e c t - t h a t you


22/148

TRlPERSONALISM: ELUllNED. 21leave you to draw the necessary inference. Do youbelieve that in Christ dwelloth, as the Apostle assuresus," all the fulness of the Divinity"? or that out of anddistinct from Him, as you are out of and distinct fromany two of your friends, there exist two other DivineFersons? I f " all the fullness," which I understand tomean the wholeness or totality of the Godhead or Divin-ity, dwells in Christ, then where is the need or eventhe propriety of thinking of any Divinity out ofHim, or of any other Person except Him ? Yet youseem to think of two other Persons, or at least tothink that there are two others, however ''feeble theconception you are able to form of them. For, nearthe close of your sermon, looking forward to a periodwhen you shall have passed from this stage of being,and expressing the confident belief that you shall thenbehold Christ "as He is, no whit less than God," youadd : "And if then likewise before my clarified visionthere shall arise in equal proportions of majesty thethen revealed Father and Holy Spirit, they shall notovershadow my Christ, nor take anything from theglory of His Divinity. What this fine.I revelation ofthe ma:jesty of God shall be, I am content to leave tillthat hour of birth which men call death." "The thenrevealed Father I" You surprise me, my brother, bythis language, not less than by that quoted in theearlier part of my letter. And I am prompted to ask,Is God the Father as yet unrevealed to Christians?Must we wait till "that hour of birth which men calldeath" for the revelation of our Father in Heaven?Has not the Father graciously revealed Himself to us

Digitzod YGoogle


23/148

22 LETI'ERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.

already? Was it not one great object of Christ'sadvent to "bring the Father forth to view?" Did notall that is signified by the Father-all the fulness ofthe Divine L o v ~ w e l l in Christ, as the soul in thebody ? And seeing Him, do we not see the Father,as truly as I see you when I look upon your body,which is the natural out-birth and express image ofyour soul-your real self-in this lower sphere? Howelse are W{l to interpret the explicit declarations of theDivine Satlour Himself? "Philip saith unto Him,Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesussaith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He thatbath seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayestthou, then, Show us the Father. Believe me that Iam in the Father, and the Father in me."If, then, you have seen Christ-seen him, I mean, withyour mental eye-if you have seen and comprehendedHis blessed spirit of humility, meekness, forbearance,long-suffering, gentleness, patience, forgiveness-ifyou have felt the power of His redeeming love in yoursoul like the warmth of a summer's sun-if you haveseen Him working mysteriously in the deep places ofyour heart, opening up and revealing to your consciousperception the supreme selfishness and manifold evilsof your natural man, and teaching and strengtheningyou to overcome them-if you have thus, spirituallyand truly, seen Christ, then, and in that degree, haveyou seen the Father. The Divine has been manifestedto you in and through the Human ;-God has beenrevealed to you in Christ-the Father in the Son.


24/148

TRI-PERSONALISll ELUUNED. 23

'He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father." And in110 other way-sure as God's Word is true--will theFather ever be revealed or shown to men. As weadvance in the regenerate life, and our vision becomesclarified, we shall be able to comprehend more andmore of the Divine, and thus to see more and moreof the Father ; for he will continue to reveal Himselfto us in richer O.oods of glory, and greater depths oftenderness and love, as we draw nearer to His morallikeness. But ever will it be--in the land of theHereafter not less than of the Now and Here-as thesuccessive unfoldings and revealings of the same greatCentral Luminary-the emanations from the face ofthe same Spiritual Sun, grown brighter, sweeter, andmore entrancing, as the smoke and vapor that surround our little earth-worlds fade away and disappear.

And thus will the Father arise in the Hereafternot a11 another Person "in equal proportions of majesty," but as the self-same Person-the same almightyand blessed Saviour manifesting Himself more plainly"before our clarified vision ; "-showing us more andmore clearly the face of our heavenly Father ;-revealing, with ever increasing fulness, according to ourgrowing receptivity, the amazing wealth of the DivineWisdom, and sweetness of the Divine Love. So that,what you are looking forward to as the " final revelation of the majesty of God," and which you think is veiled in utter darkness now, will only be a fuller revelation of His unspeakable wisdom and matchless love-amore complete unfolding and revealing to human spirits, of those essential human attributes (pre-eminent


25/148

24 LETl'ERS TO BF!ECHER ON THE TRINITY.

among which stands disinterested love), which con-.stitute the glory, and greatness, and hence" the ma-jesty " of God.Can this final revelation of the Divine majesty b ~aught else than this, according to every rational andScriptural view of the subject? Nay, can it be aughtelse, according to your own idea of the Divine character, and of the particular attribute which constitutesthe distinguishing and chief element of God's greatness-unselfish love? This essential attribute of theDivine Nature stands forth conspicuously in the person and character of Christ, even to our now obscureand beclouded vision. And when we shall have passed the portals of the tomb, and been lifted into realmsof loftier thought and sweeter affection-when thedust of earth-born desires, which so obscures ourvision now, shall have passed away, and our soulsshall have emerged into the pure and serene air ofheaven, may we not reasonably expect that, to ourthen clarified vision, the same Divine Saviour's facewill glow with a seven-fold radiance-His love andwisdom beam with a seven-fold intensity? So wasit with the three favorcd disciples of old. When theywere carried "up into an high mountain, apart," He,who appeared before to their ordinary percc?f;ion aslittle more than common flesh and blood, was now" transfigured before them ; and His face did shine asthe sun, and His raiment was white as the light."Why may we not consider this Scripture as designedto teach us the beautiful and important_ lesson, thatthe Lord Jesus is always transfigured before his dis-

o;9;1;wd by Google


26/148

TRlPERSONALISK EXUlINED.

ciples in the degree that they are brought into higherspiritual states-up into the mount of his own purityand love? The farther we advance in the regeneratelife, or the higher we ascend spiritually, so much themore resplendent shines the face of the Divine Saviour.So that when we reach that heavenly city where thereis no night, and" where they need no candle neitherlight of the sun," we may expect to see Him as He isseen by the angels-" His face shining as the sun, andhis raiment white as the light." And if God is theSon of the spidtual world, as the Scripture teaches,and if Christ appears to the angels all radiant withlight,-" above the brightness of the Sun "-as he appeared to the Apostle on his way to Damascus, thenwe cannot conceive of a plurality of Divine Persons,without at the same time conceiving of a. plurality ofheavenly Suns-a plurality of Gods.But you believe in the tri-personality of God, because you think the Bible teaches it. "The NewTestament," you say," teaches three persons." Pardonme, my brother, for saying, that here you labor undera great mistake. This idea was doubtless early im pressed upon your mind ; and it is, I presume, fromthe influence of that early teaching, rather than fromany conviction on the subject reached by a carefulpersonal examination, that this assertion is made. I donot mean to charge that it is made rashly or thoughtlessly-for I understand too well the force of earlytaching to do that ; but sure am I, that if you carefully examine the New Testament with reference tothis point, you will yourself discover your mistake.2

Diyitized by Google


27/148

26 LE'ITERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRIXITY.You will find, as I have found, that the doctrine ofthree Persons in the Godhead, is not a doctrine_of theBible. I affirm with confidence that no such doctrineis anywhere taught in the Sacred Scripture. And ifyou think otherwise, I should esteem i t a special favorif you would refer me to the particular passage--forI confess I have never met with it. No. This tripersonal doctrine, rely upon it, is not a doctrine explicitly taught in the Bible, but is simply an inferencedrawn by frail and fallible men from what is theretaught. And when you consider what strange thingsmen have understood the Bible to teach on other subjects-what false and absurd opinions have been supposed to be the legitimate and necessary inferencesfrom its teachings-you may, perhaps, be able to concede the possibility, that, upon this subject also theinference may not be well-founded.

That the Bible teaches the existence of a Trinity inthe Divine Being is fully conceded. I also am willingto concede, that, in the literal sense of the Scripture,this Trinity a-ppeara to be a Trinity of Persons-justas it sometimes a-ppeara from the same sense as if Godactually indulged in anger, hatred, revenge, an.d fury,and that He repents like one who has sinned or madea mistake. But you, I cannot doubt, will agree withme when I say, that the apparent truth in the letter ofthe Bible is not always to be accepted f(lr the realtruth. There is much apparent truth in the volumeof Nature which we know is quite different from thereal truth ; and the language of men is framed toagree rather with appearances than with realities.


28/148

TRl-PERSONALISM EXAllINED. 2'lTlius when we say that the sun rises, or the sun goesdown, it is well known that our language expressesonly the apparent and not the real truth. What if, inthis respect, there shoul_ be found to exist a closeanalogy between the volume of Nature and the volumeof Revelation ? And what if, when we penetrate be-neath the letter of Scripture-when we pass beyondthe cloudy region of appearances to the brighterrealm of realities-we should find this appearance ofthree Persons in the Godhead to be only an appearance ? What if, looking beyond the letter that killethto the spirit that giveth life, we should find revealedto us in the higher and truer sense of Scripture onlyone Divine Person, in whom, nevertheless, are threeessential elements, represented in the letter by Father,Son, and Holy Spirit? I t would only be verifyingthe truth and justness of your own apt illustration ofthe subject by three branches springing from onetrunk, and appearing to the superficial observer, whoviews them "from behind a garden wall," as three trees.When, at the same time, to quote the language whichyou put into the mouth of one of your supposed interlocutors, "If you could look behind the wall, youwould find that, after all, these apparently three treescame together at a point beyond your sight, and standupon one root, and make but one tree." The illustration is a good one ;-not good, however, for yourtri-personal doctrine, but quite at war with it.But you yourself perceive the difficulties with whichthe popular doctrine of the Trinity is embarrassed, andwith characteristic manliness and candor acknowledge


29/148

28 LETrEBS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.

them. " I am obliged," you say, "on any ground, torecognize difficulties, and to feel my ignorance ; andat the very best it is a choice of difficulties." " Whichever way I go in the New Testament, if I walk withthose who believe in the absolute oneness of God, orwith those who believe in the tri-personality of oneGod, I find many things obscure. Surely, I shouldchange my view i f another one were presented to mewhich reconciled and harmonized every passage of theNew Testament." There i8 a doctrine which I thinkdoes this-and which I propose in future letters tounfold and explain ; -a doctrine alike rational andScriptural, which, while it maintains a Divine Trinity,shows this Trinity to be of such a nature as is com-patible with the strict r>ersonal, unity of God and thesupreme Divinity of Jesus Christ. .And though I canhardly hope so to unfold and exhibit this new doctrine,that you will be able at once to see it clear of all dif-ficulty, I trust I may be enabled to present it in suchlight as to convince you that the difficulties attendant upon it are incomparably less than those by whichthe old and popular doctrine is confessedly embarrassed. However that may be, I cannot doubt butmy well-meant effort will be duly appreciated by you ;and sincerely hope that the spirit which prevades myLetters may ever be such as to meet the approval ofour common Lord and Master, and advance in somehumble degree the interests of His blessed kingdom.In this hope I subscribe myself

Your Friend and Brother,Orange, May 28, 1859. B. F. BABB'l'l"r.


30/148

NATURE OF THE DTVlNll: TRINITY. i9

WHERE TO LOOK FOR AN IllAGE OF THE DMNE TRINITY.

MY DEAR SIR :-Permit me to say, in resuming thesubject of my last letter, that I write not in the interests of any sect or party-not even as a New Church-man in the popular or technical sense of that term.But I write in tlie interests of our common Christianity, and with the desire of promoting a cause which,I doubt not, is as dear to your heart as to mine-thecause of pure and undefiled religion.You, my brother, occupy no ordinary position in thechurch of Christ. Your learning and talents, yourpiety and zPal, your manly independence and noblecourage, your sincerity and earnestness, your devotionto every cause which you believe good and just, com-bined with your vivid imagination, your fertility inresources, and your brilliant and unrivalled rhetoricalpowers, place you deservedly among the foremost ofthose now occupying the American pulpit. Yourinfluence is probably more extensive and more potentthan that of any other clergyman in the United States.Your utterances are caught up by the religious andsecular press, and wafted, as on the wings of the wind,to the remotest corners of our land. Where ordinarypreachers count their audiences by tens (includingreaders as well as hearers}, you may count yours by


31/148

SO LETl'ERS TO BEECHER ON TBJ: TRINITY.

thousands. I t is, therefore, far more important foryou to be right on all questions of moment in moralsand religion, than for other men-as much more im-portant as your influence is wider and more powerful.I f you go wrong, or teach something which is not true,the mischief of such teaching will be incalculablygreater than though the same error had been taughtby one of your humbler brethren. An ordinary min-ister may start from false premises, or reason badlyfrom those that are true ; he may teach for doctrinesthe commandments of men, and. present for Bibletruth dogmas that are false and absurd; he may con-tradict himself repeat.edly in the same discourse-as,not unfrequently happens-and no great harm resultfrom it. But when a minister of such commandingtalents and influence as you possess, presents a def c-tive argument on any high theme, or when he affirmsthings that are irreconcilable with each other andwith right reason, the cause of Christ suffers morednmage. His defective argument or false affirmationwill be taken up and repeated by ten thousand tongues,and his error be propagated to distant lands and aremote posterity. And if there are those who perceive the defect in his logic, or the error in his statement, they will be likely to think such error or defectbelongs to the Christian system itself; and so Christianity will .suffer in their estimation.It is, then, in view of your position in the Americanchurch of Christ, and your unquestionable influence inshaping the future theological thought of our country,that I am induced to write you on this subject of the


32/148

N..1.TURE OF THE DIVINE TRINITY. 31

Divine Trinity. It is an important subject and hasever been so regarded by Christians. It is one, aboutwhich there have been mauy long and angry controversies in the church. The popular doctrine on thesubject-i. e. the doctrine of three Divine Persons,which has been held by the great majority of Christians ever since the Council of Nice-is confessedly.embarrassed with great difficulties. Yourself and, others of your own denomination are candid enough toacknowledge this. You see that it is hard-I hold itto be impossible-to believe in a pera


33/148


34/148

NATURE OF THE DIVINE TRINITY, 33complete surrender if not the absolute crucifixion ofmy reason, I call it darkness. I f there be a true doctrine of the Trinity, different from the one which youprofess, and which has been held by the great majorityof Christians- for so many centuries, what could bemore reasonable than to expect that it would someday be revealed? And may not the revelation of thegenuine truth on this subject, together with an un-folding of the deeper and truer meaning of Scriptureon other subjects, be among the things pointed at inthose prophetic intimations which our Saviour utteredeighteen hundred years ago? "I have yet manythings to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, hewill guide you into all truth." "These things haveI spoken unto you in proverbs; but the time comethwhen I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, butI shall show you plainly of the Father." I believethat the time here alluded to has already come ; andthat men-all, I mean who have eyes to see-arenow being shown plainly of the Father. I believethat the s(>irit of truth here promised--the spirit ofthe Divine Wod-has come, and that it is even nowguiding the genuine disciples of the Lord, whosehearts are open to receive it, into all truth. I believethat the true spiritual !'lense of the Word has been laidopen by that distinguished servant of the Lord, Emannel Swedenborg; attd among other interesting and im-portant truths therein revealed, is the truth concerning the Divine Trinity. I grant that it appears fromthe literal sense of the Scripture as if there were throo2*


35/148

3! LETrERS TO BEECHER ON THE T R l ~ I T Ypersons in the Godhead-though this is no where distinctly taught ;-jm.t as your three branches springingfrom one trunk appear to the superficial observer, orto one who views them " from behind a garden wall,"as three trees. But the spiritual sense "breaks downthat garden wall, or lifts us above i t ; for it lifts usabove mere appearane8 and disclose1:1 realities. Itshows us, that, what appears from the sense of theletter as three Divine Persons, is in reality but oneDi vine Person-just as a closer observation, or ahigher view, of your apparently three trees shows them"coming together at a point beyond your [former] sight, .and standing upon one root, and making but one tree."

The doctrine concerning the Divine Trinity, therefore, to which I invite your serious attention, is noneother than that revealed for the New Church throughSwedenborg. But no special indulgence is claimedfor the view I am about to present, on the score ofSwedenborg's alleged or admitted illumination. Youare not asked to accept it on his authority, but simplyto examine it with candor in the light of reason andRevelation. But if I succeed in showing you that ithas the t e s ~ i m o n y of both these witnesses, I am encourage


36/148

NATURE OF THB DIVINE TRINITY. 85

And I rejoice that you and I have so much commonground to stand upon. The points upon which weagree, touching the great central doctrine of Christianity-the doctrine concerning the true Object ofworship-are numerous and important. My first notice of your sermon on "Understanding God" musthave satisfied you of this. We even agree as to thefact of a trinity in God, and differ only as to thenature of this trinity. I accept, too, what you sayabout the measure of our ability to understand orinterpret God. And as it seems to have an importantbearing upon the subject under discussion, you willpardon me for introducing here a few extracts fromyour late sermon." First, in further opening up this subject, I remarkthat man's own being is given to him as the determiningclement by which he is to understand all things outsideof himself. This is the only means by which we canmeasure and understand things foreign to ourselves ;and I do not hesitate to say that no man can understandanything of which there is not in himself an element oranalogue." " The moment you undertake to understand anythingpredicated of the Divine Being, of which there is notsome germ, some 11eed-form, in yourself, to stand as ananalogue, that very moment you fall into confusion."

" I t has been thought to be the right way of exaltingGod, to teach that He is absolutely different from men.. . . I t has been thought to be presumption to takethat which is God-like in man, and by it to representtruthfully God's nature. I t has been supposed that a11of God's likening himself to man in the Bible, is onaccount of our weakness ; and that accordingly, it is tobe interpreted as giving U'S some proximate idea ofwhat God is, but not as giving tis the real truth. Well,


37/148

36 UT1'BR8 TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.what is the use of proximate truth, that is not a bit likethe real truth?"" I aver that the quality of love in God is exactly likethe quality of love in you.. . . I f a man says thatlove in me is no fit measure of the depth, or the breadth,or the length, or the versatility of the love of God, he isright ; but yet it is a true criterion by which to judgeof the essential quality of love in God .""What an utter wreck and ruin would be presentedof that fal1:1e notion of God which some persons hold,namely, that we can have 110 real knowledge of Him,but only a kind of false representation, which comesnearer representing Him than anything else, but still isnothing like a true representation-,vhat an utter wreckand ruin, I say, would be presented of this false notion,if every conscientious man were to admit that God is inno respect. different, in the essential elements of his

character, from men, but a being whom we ourselvescome nearer representing than anything else I""The Scripture teaching on this point is simply th is-that man was made in the image of God, in order, as wesuppose, that he might nndorstand Him. The spiritualand the higher nature of man is really, absolutely .likeGod's ; just as red is like red, just as green is likegreen.""We are so like God in this respect, that i f you knowwhat disinterested love is, then you know the kind oflove that God feels ; if you know what true justice is,yon know what God regards as justice. You know notthe whole expP;.rience of God ; but i f you know one letter in the alphabet of a knowledg-e of God, that lettergives you a correct conception ofHim as far as it goes.""Right thinking, based upon right living, is the philosophical method of finding out God."Let us turn to a ~ a y i n g of the Apostle John, whichhas an intimate bearing upon this subject : 'Beholdwhat manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us,that we should be called the sons of God I ' Children


38/148

NATURE OF THE DIVINE TRINITY. 8'l

arc like their parents. They inherit their nature fromtheir parents. Like begcts like everywhere. From thebeginning of the world to the present, the declarationhas been ringing that we are God's children ; that weare like God ; that we are made in God's image ; thatGod is our Father ; that the parental likeness is givenus in its elements.""That is the way you are going to see God--by your

own consciousness, and the qualities in you answeringto a like consciousness and to like qualities in Him.And n'O man can know one whit more of God than hepossesses in his own being. We can comprehend Godonly to the degree that His power, in-dwelling in us,causes our higher nature to act as His nature acts, thusrendering us interpreters of Him."Now I accept what you here say as at once rational

and Scriptural. . You have only stated in varied language what is more summarily expressed in the language of Holy Writ: "So God created man in His ownimage ; in the image of God created He him." Butlet us apply this 11ound and excellent tea< hing to thesubject under consideration.

You maintain that "you cannot understand anything predicated of the Divine Being, of which thereis not some germ, some seen-form in yourself." Youreject, as "a false notion," the doctrine which teaches"that He is absolutely different from men," and declareyour belief" that God is in no respect different, in theessential elements of His character, from men, but aIleing whom we ourselves come nearer representingthan anything else." .And, consistently enough, youadd: "Right thinking, based upon right living, is thephilosophical method of finding out God." Yourmeaning here seems quite intelligible-and alike


39/148

88 LE'l'l'ERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.rational and Scriptural: I t is, that we understand, or"find out" God more and more, the more we becomelike Him in the spirit and temper of our minds. By"right living." I suppose you mean un1ling right andacting right ; for both willing aud acting are involvedin living. Then your meaning in the last sentencequoted, must be, that the best and truly philosophicalmethod of finding out God, is, to think right, to feelor will right, and to act right. A.nd you will nodoubt agree r.ith me, that to think right on moraland spiritual themes, is to think according to the willof God as revealed in His Holy Word; or, to thinkin accordance with the laws of heavenly order-tothink according to the truths of spiritual and heavenlylife. But you very well know that right thinking,however indispensable this may be to right acting, isnot alone sufficient to constitute one a good man ora genuine Christian. Therefore you have wiselycoupled with this, right living. A.nd right livingclearly involves two things: First, a right purposeof the heart-a pure motive-a right determinationof the will ; and second, the ultimation of that rightpurpose, or the carrying of our good intentions intoontward act . In other words, when the rulfng pur-pose of a man's heart is to do right, or, what is thesame, to do God's will without any thought of recom-pense, then his motive is pure-his will has a rightdetermination. A.nd when he


40/148

NATURE OF THE DITINE TRINITY. 39to those laws of heavenly order, in agreement withwhich he thinks a.nd wills. His thoughts and feelingsare heavenly ; and his deeds, outflowing therefrom, areof a corresponding character. Such a man is in thelikeness of God, for he has God's iruage in himself.And by virtue of this in-dwelling of the Divine likeness, he is enabled to understand God-to see Himmentally or spiritually. And this is the only waythat God can be truly seen or understood. Hence it is written, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for theyshall see God ; " that is, shall mentally perceive Himshall understand His true character.

This I understand to be the obvious meaning ofwhat is taught in your sermon. This is your ownview without any essential modification, and but slightly expanded. It is what I gather from your languagewhen you say : " That is the way you are going to seeGod-by your own consciousness, and the qualities inyou answering to a like consciousness and to like qualities iu Him. And no man can know one whit more ofGod than he possesses in his own being. We can com-prehend God only to the degree that His power, in-dwelling in us, causes our higher nature to act as Hisnature a.cts, thus rendering us interpreters of Him."You will not fail to discover the purpose for whichI have made these quotations from your sermon.They are extremely pertinent to the subject underdiscussion. For if we ." are going to see God " byhaving in ourselves elements or qualities which answerto like elements or qualities in Him, then should wenot look to ourselves in order to see, that is, to un.


41/148


42/148

NATURE OF THE DIVINE TRINITY. 41

the matter of loving, He loves just as we love. I, withthe little spark in my bosom, love just as God loveswith the vast flame which is ever bursting forth fromHis great nature." And notwithstanding God's imagein the soul of man has been terribly marred and distorted by sin, it has ever been, and is still, the beliefof Christians, that by regeneration the Divine imageis restored to us. This renewal or restoration ofGod's image in the soul, is obviously what is meant bythe new man and the new creation of which Paulspeaks; for, writing to the Ephesian ,brethren on thesubject of this inward spiritual renewal, he exhortsthem to "put on the new man, which, after God, iscreated in righteousness and true holiness.'' Andagain, writing to the Colossians, he speaks of "thenew man " as one " which is renewed in know ledgeafter the image of Him that created him." And else-where in the Bible the regenerate are spoken of asthe sons or children of God, and as created anew inHis own image and likeness. Thus, in a passagequoted in your sermon (1 John iii. 2) : "Beloved, noware we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appearwhat we shall be ; but we know that, when He shallappear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him asHe is." And upon this you justly remark, that"we shallsee Him just as He is, because we shall be like Him."That is, we shall understand God in the degree thatwe become spiritually like Him-in the degree thatwe are created ane'V after His Divine likeness. Or,to cite again your own language, "The moment webegin to grow like Christ, that moment we begin to


43/148

42 LETl'ERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.understand him better ; and the more we grow likeHim, the better we shall understand Him."We have, then, the indisputablP, warrant of HolyScripture for saying that man was originally createdin the image of God. And the same high authorityassures us, that, although this image has been defaced,and almost blotted out, through the mal_ign power ofevil, yet by the new spiritual birth the Divine likenessis restored to the soul. By following the Lord in theregeneration, man is re-created in the image of his:Maker. This is so clearly taught in the Bible, that itis believed by nearly all Christendom. I t is your ownbelief. And I submit that the logical and necessaryinference from tl1is, is, that whatever be the nature. ofthe Divine Trinity, the image of that Trinity must befound in every regenerate or regenerating man. Andif we are not justified in calling a regenerate man tripersonal, no more are we justified in speaking orthinking of a tri-personal God. We have not theleast warrant, either from Scripturfl or reason, forbelieving in or talking of any other ldnd of trinity inGod, than that which exists in every man who has beencreated anew in God's own image. And when men d-0think of any different kind-when they talk of a tri-personal Ood, to cite the language of our candidbrother Bushnell, " they only confuse their understanding, and call their confusion faith." What canwe understand-what ought we, therefore, to believeor teach--concerning any trinity in God, other thanthat whose hnage, seed-form, or analogue we find inourselves 'l For, as you yourself have truly said, "t11e


44/148

NATURE OF THE DIVINE TRINITY. 43

moment you undertake to understand anything predi-cated of the Divine Being, of which there is not somegerm, some seed-form in yourself, to stand as ananalogue, that moment you fall into confusion." Andwhen you talk about a trinity in God, to which wefind nothing analogous in the finite human being-atrinity of such a nature that there is nothing in manor known to man which resembles it, or gives us theleast idea of i t -a trinity of which it is not pretendedthat any human understanding is able to take cognizance, or one which, if there be any such pretense,leads by the strictest logical necessity to tritheismwhen you talk, I say, of such an unknown and incomprehensible trinity," I am"-to use your own languagein reference to certain abstract qualities that do notcentre in a personal, God-" I am crazed by it." Youtalk of a trinity, the image of which is unknown onearth, and whose nature there is nothing in me thatexplains, or furnishes the least clue to it. It is as ifyou talked in Sanscrit, or discoursed to me of a sixthsense. And, to quote again from your generally excellent sermon, "when you attempt to conceive of asixth sense, unlike anything in you, every one feelsthat there is no such thing as understanding such asense, because there is nothing in ourselves by whichto interpret it."I maintain, therefore, that the true nature of theDh'ine Trinity reveals itself in the constitution of thefinite human being, and finds here its only completeand rational explanation. The image of this Trinityis and must be in ourselves, because we were created


45/148

44, LE'rl'ERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.

to be images and likenesses of God. We were madeto be the recipients, in a finite degree, of each andevery element that enters into the Divine character.We can know nothing of God's love save as its natureor quality is revealed to us in the love that we feel,and which flows into our hearts from Him who is LoveItself. We can know nothing of God's wisdom, ex-cept so far as that bumble measure of our human wis-dom, wl1ich we receive from Him, shadows forth, orin some measure images, the Divine. And so of God'smercy, justice, long-suffering, tenderness, benevolence,foresight, righteousness, and all the other Divine attributes; we can have no knowledge of them, andof course cannot talk of them intelligently, except inthe degree that we have some measure--some faintimage at least-of these same attributes in ourselves.And this, doubtless, you will concede, since it followsas a logieal inference from your own affirmations,that it is the spiritual nature [in us] that interpret'fGod ; that " as to the matter of loving, He loves justas we love ; " and that "the quality of love in God isexactly like the quality of love in you," only im-measurably superior in purity; amplitude and power.Rely upon it, then, my brother, the true doctrineconcerning the Divine Trinity, like every other doc-trine concerning the Divine character and attributes,must base itself upon the constitution of our own im-mortal being, and find its image, and so its rationalinterpretation there. Any doctrine which fails to dothis, will sooner or later be seen to have no foun


46/148

NATURE 011' THE DIVINE TRINITY. 45

dation, and will be discarded by the wise and good asa mere human invention.But what is the trinity in man which is supposed toimage forth, and so to interpret for us, the nature ofthe Divine Trinity? I should weary you, were I toenter upon the explanation of this now, and do anything like tolerable justice to the subject. Althoughit has been hinted at, and indistinctly shadowed forthin a portion of the present letter, I trust to be ablein my next to make the matter so plain, that no lingering doubt about it shall remain in any honest mind.And if I succeed in satisfying you that this finitehuman trinity, the nature of which I propose to ex-hibit, is the analogue or image, and therefore the trueinterpreter for us, of the Infinite Divine Trinity, Ishall feel that I have been amply rewarded for myhumble effort. Meanwhile-begging that you willweigh with seriousness and candor what I have heresaid, for it has an important bearing on what I haveyet to say-I subscribe myselfYour Friend and Brother,B. F. BARRETT.Orange, JuJ,y 12, 1859.


47/148

(6 LETl'ERS TO BUCHER ON TBll T&INITY.

LETTER III.

EXPLANATION OF THE TRINITY IN MAN WHICH IMAGESTHE TRINITY IN GOD.

MY DEAR Sm : - In my last letter I endeavored toshow, that, whatever be the nature of the DivineTrinity, the image of that Trinity must be found inevery regenerate or regenerating man. And permitme here to say, that I see not how you can help admit-ting this to be a legitima.te conclusion, as well fromthe plain teachings of Holy Scripture as from manydeclaratillns in your sermon which I have often quoted.The Bible plainly teaches that man was originallymade in God's image and likeness. And you yourself,referring to the Scripture teaching on this s u b j e c t ~say, that "man was made in the image of God, inorder, as we suppose, that he might understand Him."How else, then, shall we learn or understand the truenature of the trinity in God, save as we see thattrinity imaged in ourselves? You further declarethat " no man can know one whit more of God thanhe possesses in his own being." What, then, I askagain, can we know of the trinity in God, except whatwe learn of its nature from the image of that trinityin ourselves? That the inevitable inference from yourown admissions as well as from the declarations of


48/148

EXPLAl'\ATlON OF THE TRIXITY IN MAN. 4 fScripture, is directly at war with the popular doctrineon this subject, is no doubt as clear to you as to myself.I will now endeavor to show, agreeable to the pro-mise in my Jast letter, what is that trinity in man, fromwhich, as an image, we are to learn the nature of theDivine Trinity. And we must look at the spiritudnature of man for that which shall be "to us the imageand exponent of the trinity in God ; for " Ood is aspirit." What, then, is the trinity in man viewed asa spiritual and immortal being?Whatever system of mental philosophy we adopt,we shall find, upon a careful anaylsis and induction,that all the faculties of the mind arrange themselvesinto two great classes, the one intellectual, the otheremotional. The general dhisions of the brain itself,according to the disclosures of modern science, furnisha solid basis for this classification. The intellectualfaculties are those by which we think, reason, analyzeand judge ; and together they constitute the under-standing. The emotional, are those by which we feel,desire, purpose, and love; and together they constitutethe will. All of love and affection, therefore, belongsto the will; all of wisdom and thought to the under-standing. In whatever we do or say or determine, weshall find that these two general faculties, will andunderstanding, are brought into active exercise.ETery mental and bodily movement originates in thewill. We cannot speak nor act-no, nor even thinkdeterminately upon any given s u ~ j e c t , without firstwilling or desiring so to do. But the understandingis intimately connected with the wiU, so that the two


49/148

48 Lltt'l'EBS TO BEECHER ON THE TBlNlTY.

act together mutually and reciprocally, like the heartand lungs. Accordingly we no sooner experience anemotion, than that emotion is kansferred to the intellect in the form of some thought. We no soouerwill or desire to speak or act, than this desire -comesforth into conscious perception, and reveals itself insome corresponding thought in the understanding. I fwe desire to paint a picture, or carve a statue, orwrite a book, or make a machine, or embark in anyenterprise,_we immediately think of the kind of picture, statue, book or machine that we will make, orthe nature of the enterprise in which we will embark.The thought is the offspring of the affection or desire,whose nature and quality it reveals. As we feel orlove, so we think. Hence it has passed into a proverbthat "the wish is father to the thought." Indeed it isimpossible to conceive of any thought which does notproceed or flow from some desire in the will ; and anyone may know what are his dominant desires, byscanning the character of his prevailing thoughts,since these latter are the legitimate manifestations orout-births of the former. There are, it is true, different planes of thought-some higher and some lower;and an endless variety of subjects which may bethought of, on each plane. And there are aleo corresponding varieties or grades of love-different degreesof elevation to the will-affections differing in ki_ndand intensity. But as all thought, be the subject orthe plane whatever it may-be it t.he thought of thingsnatural or of things spiritual, of this world or of theworld to come-appertains to the understanding, so


50/148

EXPLANATION OF THE TRINITY IN KAN. 49all loYe of whatever kind or degree-be i t the loveof self and the world, or the loYe of the Lord and theneighbor-appertains to the will.

But there are, you will say, many different kindsand degrees of love appertaining to the mind of oneand the same individual. A man loves his wife, hischildren, his friends, his neighbors, his country, hisoccupation, his church--and all these with an affectionvarying both in kind and in degree. And this, I grant,is true. But then there is always, as you are doubtless well aware, some particular kind of love in everyman which is stronger than all the rest, and whichmay, therefore, properly enough be called his rulinglove. This ruling love constitutes his life. I t entersinto and impart11 its own quality to all his other loves.It mingles with all his desires, affects all his feelings,shapes all his thoughts, colors all his actions ; so thata man may be said to be altogeiher such as his rulinglove is. Thus, if a man's ruling love be the love ofhimself, this love will pervade his whole being-willenter into all be thinks and says and does. If hedoes an act that is outwardly good, he will do it froma. selfish motive and for a selfish end ; and, viewedinwardly, as to its prompting motive-viewed in relation to himself-the act is seen to be not good inreality, but only in appearance. It is inwardly defiled with the evil of self love. His devotion to hisfamily, his neighborhood, his profession, his country,or the church, is not genuine-is not what it seems tobe. The love of self is at the bottom of it all ; andbis thought.s out-flowing from this love, are thought.a

3


51/148

50 LJl:rl'ERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.of himself and his own comfort and aggrandizement,and not of the welfare and happiness of others. Suchan individual you would not call good, however goodand fair his outward life might be; for he is not good,but supremely selfish at heart. His ruling love is evil,and this infects with its poison all his other loves.This is his life. And however it may be covered overand concealed in this world under various fair pretenses, it is none the less evil in itself considered ;and sooner or later-in the other world if not inthis-it will come forth and manifest itself. The inward defilement will reveal itself under correspondingforms of outward evil. "For," as the Scripture saith,"out of the heart [by which is denoted the will-principle, where the ruling love resides] proceed evilthoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, falsewitness, blasphemies. These are the things whichdefile a man.''

But suppose man's ruling love to be the oppositeof the love of self-suppose him to love the Lord withall his heart--this love will diffuse its sweet perfumethroughout all the chambers of his soul. All hissubordinate loves will partake of the same elevatingcharacter, and therefore will all be good. He willseek in all things to learn and do the will of the Lord.Supreme love to Him will beget in His understandingcorresponding thoughts-thoughts of what the Lordrequires him to be and to do-thoughts of those tl1ingswhich are well-pleasing to Him. And since the Lordrequires us to love our neighbor as ourselves, this manwill strive not so much to get good f1om others, as to

Diyitized by Google


52/148

EXPLANATION OF THE TRINITY IN JUN. 51impart good to others. He will be animated with adesire to render himself in the highest degree usefulin his day and generation. Such an individual-actingever under the influence of a controling desire andpurpose to do the Lord's will-you would call good.He is a good man because his heart is right in thesight of God ; because his ruling love is good, or suchas the Lord desires it should be-love to Him; for itis the ruling love which determines a man's real character. And yet even this good man may not realizeour highest conception of a human being. To do this,he must be wise as well as good. He must have aknowing head as well as a loving heart-an enlightened understanding as well as a good will. He mustnot only desire and purpose in all things to do God'swil1, but his understanding must be so illumined thathe can see what that will is-at least in relation tohimself-and how he is to do it. Otherwise-withoutthe guiding light of wisdom-with the best of intentions, the man may often stray from the right path,and do things which a more enlightened understandingwould ham shown him to be wrong. Many good peopie, we know, often err through ignorance. Theirhearts are right, but their heads are comparativelyunenlightened. They have an abundance of love intheir wills, but have not a corresponding measure oftruth in their understandings. The errors of suchpeople may not be sins-are not sins, if they haveaYailed themselves of the opportunities of becomingenlightened which Providence has placed within theirreach. Or, if sins, they are such as are not imputed


53/148

52 LE'lTERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.to them-such as God ever "winks at "-sins ofignorance.You will concede, then, I think, that our highest.conception of human character, or of a human being,is not realized until we have a wise and enlightenedhead united to a pure and loving heart. Truth in theunderstanding must be married to love in the will, sothat the two shall exist and act together as one, like

t r ~ e conjugial partners, or like the heart and lungs inman. This is the union which God designed shouldexist in every human soul-a union which does existin every true and thoroughly regenerate soul-viz.,the union of the head with the heart, or of truth inthe understanding with love in the will. I t is a unionof things which God hath joined together, but whichman, in his state of alienation from God, is foreverputting asunder--a union of truth with its goodness,of wisdom with its love. This is the heavenly marriage-a marriage which is consummated in everysoul that becomes spiritually conjoined to Him, whois revealed in Scripture as the Bridegroom and Husband of the Church. This union of love in the willwith wisdom in the understanding, is, to our moralworld, what the union of light with heat is to thenatural world. I t clothes the earth within us withliving verdure, and makes our wilderness an Eden,our desert like the garden of the Lord.But our highest conception of a human being is notyet reached. To complete our model man, or to makehim what every thoroughly regenerate man must be, itis necessary to add to our co11ception a third clcn:ent,


54/148

EXPLANATION OF THE TRINITY IN MAN. 53and that is-action. I t is necessary that love m thewill be united to truth in the understanding, and thatthese go forth unitedly and ultimate themselves in alife of active useful,ness. In other words, your perfectman, or one having the measure of an angel, must notbe a do-nothing or an idler in this world of ours. Hemw;t be a worker-must perform uses. Indeed hecannot help working, since it is the very nature oflove and wisdom, when united in the soul, to go forthand ultimate themselves in acts of beneficence andmercy. Therefore a good and regenerate man j8,and must be, a busy man. His heart being full of loveto the Lord-which involves also disinterested loveto the neighbor-and his understanding full of thetruths of wisdom which teach him what is really goodfor his neighbor, and how to do it, he cannot fold l!ishandR and sit idle. He must be ever active--evergoing forth on errands of mercy-ever engaged inthe performance of beneficent deeds-ever busy abouthis Father's business-ever striving faithfully to dis-charge his duty in whatever sphere Providence hasplaced him ; for this, be knows, is just what liisHeavenly Father desires him to do. All his acts,therefore, being performed under the prompting in-fluence of love-love to the Lord and to the neigh bor-and according to the truths of wisdom, must needsbe good acts, tending to enlighten, improve, elevate,and bless humanity.Here, then, we have our model man complete.Here we have the angelic standard of true manhood- " the measure of a man, that is, of the angel." I


55/148

5 LETI'ERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITYquite agree with you in your remarks, that'' the heartis the capitol "-that "manhood is in the heart ;"also in the belief you express that true human great-ness can only be reached where there is true humanlove. But although love is the first and highest ele-ment, it is not all that is necessary to perfect manhood.I t is as needful that this be united with wisdom, as thatheat be united with light, or the heart with the lungs.And when so united, then they must go forth and em-boJy themselves in ultimate and useful acts. A. manwith a pure and loving will, with a good and enlight-ened understanding, and with a life of active useful-ness in accordance therewith-does not such a manrealize your ideal of a human being? What more isnecessary to liis essential and true manhood? Whatmore do you expect in a thoroughly regenerate man ?What more in an angel? And does not such a manfulfill your highest conception of what is demanded bythat language of the Bible which represents him asoriginally created in the image and likeness of God?And will any thing kss than this satisfy the demandsof such language? Nay, will any thing less satisfythe demands of your own language, where you speakof the importance and necessity of "right thinking,based upon right living," to one who would truly" findout God?" Ir, as I suppose, in your idea of "rightliving," is involved right willing and right acting, theni t is as if you bad said, "Let a man thinlc right, willright, and act right, then he will find out God. Andwhy? Clearly because .he will then be like Himwill then be an image of Him. And as only like ones


56/148

EXPLANATION OF THE TRINITY IN MAN. 55can comprehend or see like ones, this is the only wayin which God can be found out." As you have justlyremarked : " That is the way you are going to seeGod-by your own consciousness, and the qualities inyou answering to a like consciousness and to likequalities in Him."

These three, then, will, understanding, and action, arewhat essentially constitute man. These enter intoevery one's idea-into your own idea--of man. Andeach too, is alike essential to the idea. Take awayeither one of these elements, and the idea conveyed bythe termmanis destroyed. Therefore the trinity in manis the union of three essenti.al elements. And althoughwe can think and speak of each element separately,we know that they have not, and cannot have, anyseparate and independent existence ; just as with thesun, while we may think and speak of the heat, the light,and their proceeding operation, separately, we knowthat neither can have any existence apart from theother two ; and the moment we attempt to think ofeither as withdrawn, or as having a separate and in-

. dependent existence, that moment we destroy in ourminds the very idea of:. the sun as a luminous and calorific body. We say, therefore, that heat, light, andtheir proceeding operation, are e a ~ h alike essential tothe very existence of the sun as a sun. And in likemanner we affirm that will, understanding and action,are each alike essential to the existence of man a8ma1.We thus see that this finite human trinity is by nomeans fanciful or arbitrary. I t is not an invention of

o;9;tized by Google


57/148

56 Ll:T'l'EBS TO BEECHER ON TBE TRINITY.

human ingenuity, but is founded in the very natureand constitution of the human spirit. I t is the union:of three elements, each of which is absolutely essentialto the existence of a human being. These three ele-ments stand related to each other like end, cause, andeffect-like love, wisdom, and use-like heat, light,and their proceeding operation-or like the heart,lungs, and their reciprocal action. Who does notknow that the heart cannot exist as a vital organ, performing all the functions of a heart, without the lungs,.and the activity resulting from their vital union?Neither can the lungs exist without the heart; norcan there be any reciprocal action without the unionof them both. The same is true of heat, light, andtheir proceeding operation; for neither of these canexist without the other two. .And we may say thesame of love, wisdom and use, or of affection, thought,and action. Moreover the will is the receptacle of allthat a man loves or calls good ; and the understanding'is the receptacle of all that he thinks or calls true(wisdom) ; and their action is the receptacle of theiruse or power, or is the method by which the will andunderstanding seek to embody themselves in an ultimate form. So that every work which a man does, isbut an effect of the combined activity of his will andunderstanding, or, what is the same, of his love andwisdom. And the character of every work-so far,I mean, as the individual himself is concerned-willof course, depend upon the quality of his will, or ofthe love that rules therein. I f his ruling love be thelove of the Lorq-in other words, if the prevailing


58/148

UPLANATION OF THE TRINITY IN JUN. 57

desire and purpose of his heart be to do the Lord'swill by performing deeds of true benevolence or uset.o the neighbor-then his love is good, and of coursehis work also is good. But if his ruling love be thelove of himself-that is, if it be his prevailing desireand purpose to do only his- own will without regardt.o the good of others-then his love is evil and hiswork, in itself considered, is evil, be the outwardappearance whatever it may. In the one case he is a.true, in the other au inverted, image of the Lord ; forin the one instance the love is similar, while in theother it is opposite, to the love which the Lord feelsand forever exercises toward his creatures.

I flatter myself that I have now succeeded in makingthis finite human trinity quite intelligible to yourmind. And you see, my brother, that it is not atrinity of persons, yet one of esse:ntials. I t is, more-over, a perfectly rational and intelligible trinity, andone which is seen to rest upon a foundation as solidand enduring as the soul itself. Can you show, according to any fair argument or sound philosophy, thatyour -personol, trinity is equally essential, or that itrests upon an equally substantial foundation? Try,and see if you can.

Now this human trinity-such as I have shown toexist in every good and regenerate man-I take to bea perfect image of the Divine Trinity. I look at thistrinity in man, and I learn from it the true nature ofthe trinity in God; I feel that if I know anything ofGod from what I find in my own being that answer11to a like quality in Him-be the likeness never sc

3*


59/148

58 LETl'ERS TO BEECHER ON THE TRINITY.

faint-then I know, from this trinity in myself, what isthe nature of the Divine Trinity. .And how else, letme ask, are we to learn the true nature of that Trinity?How, even according to your own admission? Foryou declare that" no man can know one whit more ofGod than he possesses in his own being." .And ifthere be in man such a trinity as I have shown toexist, why should we be unwilling to admit that theDivine Trinity must resemble tcis human one in itsessential nature? How, indeed, can the inference beresisted, since the Scripture assures us that man wasoriginally created, and is now, since the fall, to be re-created, in God's own image? How, especially, canyou deny the justice and necessity of this inference,after saying, as you have said, "that man was madein the image of God, in order, as we suppose, thathe might understand Him?" Do you say it wasnever intended that we should understand the nature of the Divine Trinity? What right have youto say this ? What authority for so believing orteaching? It is, I am aware, and has long been, quitea popular saying among Christians ; but you, no doubt,will admit that it is none the less likely, on thataccount, to involve a popular error. How know youbut a right understanding of the true nature of thattrinal distinction which exists in God, may lead tomost important practical results? However that maybe, I feel that I have abundant Scripture warrant forbelieving and saying that the trinity in man, such as Ihave here explained, is as much like the trinity inGod, as our human love, or any other attribute of


60/148

EXPLANATION OF THE TRINITY IN lUN. 59our human nature, is like God's love, or any corresponding attribute of the Divine nature. And you be-lieve that LoVE is the grand and distinguishing characteristic of the Divine Being; and that, in the language of the apostle, "He that dwelleth in Love, dwelleth in God and God in him." You believe that truehuman love in men so nearly resembles God's love inits essential nature, that we may be said to understandand know God in the degree that we have this love; andthat we can truly understand Him in no other way.For, after saying-and I agree with you entirely" that love in me is no fit measure of the depth, or thebreadth, or the length, or the versatility of the love ofGod," you add: "but yet it is a true criterion by whichto judge of the essential quality of love in God." Youalso say," that if you know what disinterested love is,then you know the kind of love that God feels." Andagain : " The spiritual and higher nature of man isreally, absolutely like God's; " and "we can compre-hend God only to the degree that His power, in-dwelling in us, causes our higher nature to act as His natureacts, . thus rendering us interpreters of Him." Thisis perfectly true; and you might have cited, in con-firmation of its truth, those beautiful words of theApostle, "Beloved, let us love one another ; for loveis of God ; and every one that loveth is born of God,and knoweth God. He that loveth not,-knoweth 'MtGod; for God is love."But is not God Wisdom or Truth, as well as Loveor Goodness? His wisdom is infinite; and thereforewe say He is omniscient. And although His wisdom


61/148


62/148

EXPLANATION OF THE 'nlINITY IN KAN. 61

thus taught us, appear to differ materially from yourown idea of it as set forth in your sermon. You re-ject very decidedly the old idea of a God of"monarchic power and physical grandeur"-ofa God whosegreatness is supposed to consist "in the great strengthof his muscle." You even flout this idea, justly characterizing it as "false," "gross," "vulgar," and "barbaric." Nor do you believe that God's greatness oromnipotence consists in mere intellectual power, orthat He is "a being of immense intellect" alone. Yetyou do not believe Him to be an unintelligent Being-a Being witJwut intellect. On the contrary, you believe His intellect to be great and unfathomable, comprehending in its stupendous grasp, all truth, allknowledge, all wisdom. But you believe that mightyintellect to exist in close and indissoluble union withanother attribute, quite distinct from it, and of a.nature superior to it. You believe it to be unitedwith a will of equal amplitude and power-with loveor justice infinitely holy, pure, and perfect. Howelse am I to interpret your language when you say,"Though I cannot worship a God of mere omnipo-tence, or vast intelligence, or right-handed justiceyet when I see a God "ith omnipotence, intelligence,and justice, who could be so unself

Documents

Benjamin F Barrett LETTERS on THE DIVINE TRINITY New York 1860