upon us; but whether there exist among us an adequate recognition of it will admit of much question. Some there are, indeed, who palliate and excuse inaction in the advocacy of truth upon the ground of the unprepared state of the world for its beneficial reception. They conceive that its diffusion might be a curse rather than a blessing. That it is so to some of those who already know and misuse it, may possibly be true. And yet no one would affirm that, because to some the truth would bring no blessing, its advocacy should cease in our churches. No: within these limited circles we do our best to express and diffuse it, and wisely trust to Providence as to the preparedness of those who hear us. Judgment in this matter is not our province, at least where numbers are concerned. The world was ready in some sort to receive the Truth, or God would not have given it; and when its tardy diffusion is matter of complaint, it is safer to blame our own supineness than the world's non-reception state. It is for us, with such power as has been given, to put forth directly and indirectly, by the press, in the pulpit, on the platform, every effort for its diffusion. The results we need not, we cannot, calculate. It is for us to do the good work with all our might, unanxious about consequences, trusting in all confidence that He whose Providence is over all, will, in His own good time, "give the increase." Under this view no doubt need clog and impede our exertions; we go to the work with a free and trustful spirit; evident success can never unduly elate, apparent failure cannot cause despondency; but with a strong and courageous heart, and a mind unclouded and bright, we work on while life and opportunity remain.

If error, the foster-father of evil, is the curse of the age; if the advocacy and diffusion of truth must be the first step in its regeneration, in what spirit shall that advocacy be conducted? The world is wearied of cold intellectualisms and heartless sophistries. No rhetorical skill or argumentative power will compensate, in these days, for the lack of deep and earnest feeling. Those words effect nothing that are not born of love. The world now needs that they who would dispel its errors and teach it truth, must bear the marks, distinct and evident, of strong and deep conviction in their souls. It will not listen to speaking automatons. Living men of flesh and blood reality must speak the words of life. He who carries the message of heaven's highest truth to man, must be himself an influence whose presence is an argument. That solid and enduring earnestness resting on the base of deep conviction, all men understand. It is as far from the wild ravings of fanaticism as from the blighting chill of cold and bloodless scepticism, the slave of the senses. And that earnestness can only be possessed

by him who has learned the worth and greatness of the truth he speaks from life as well as thought. He to whose nature it is assimilated by an experience of temptation and trial, can alone give it expression in all its unabated power and beauty. To feel is no less needful than to know. And then has human advocacy of truth attained its culmination, when feeling intense and pure blends with true and high intelligence to move and teach the human heart and mind.

Though earnest feeling be the first thing needful in any attempt to teach and lead mankind, not the less needful is powerful and searching reason, which, while pitiless to error, defends with constancy and vigour the true and right. Too long has timid bigotry warned off from the domain of religion the reason of man, On every side it is repulsed; and cunning priests would, were that possible, hunt it like a beast of prey, to death. Theology is the chosen region of bold and unscrupulous dogmatisms, that, under the sanction of ecclesiastical authority, would pass themselves for truths. These hoary errors must be assailed with merciless logic; for he who is least sparing of error is most merciful to man. We hold no terms with that spurious charity which, in the overflowing of its mock kindness, would touch but with a gentle hand the monstrous fallacies under whose sombre sway goodness decays and evils flourish. Rational, then, as well as earnest, must be our advocacy. We should make no demand for implicit faith; our church does not know it; for only within the limits of our power to see and understand the truth, is belief of it possible. The world must be taught to appreciate at its true value the high privilege conferred upon it by this New Dispensation, "to enter intellectually into the mysteries of faith." The belief must no longer remain popular that religion is of all things one that will least bear the scrutiny of enlightened reason. For while it is made sufficiently clear that this is true of what men have miscalled religion, it may be shown to be a distinguishing feature of the truths of our church, that by none are they more easily received or tenaciously held, than by those whose reason is most powerful and enlightened. Right reason is the ally and defender of true religion; between them there is no antagonism, for God has given both.

But if we would work effectively upon the general mind and heart, we must superadd another feature to our advocacy of truth. There is a danger that we may fall into fixed modes and forms of expression, adopt a language peculiar to ourselves, and thus erect a barrier between us and the rest of the world. And this danger is not imaginary. A peculiar terminology has already gained place amongst us which to uninitiated ears sounds strange and unintelligible. And this perhaps

from the fact that it is easier by far to parrot phrases current in the writings of the New Church, than to catch the spirit and life of those writings, and express them in the language employed in ordinary intercourse. Such fixity and peculiarity of expression is a most formidable barrier to the general diffusion and ready reception of our doctrines. And the additional characteristic required in our advocacy is adaptation. And this not alone in language, but in ideas and feelings. This age has a form and character peculiar to itself, and our utterances to it must take their tone and tendency from these. The world is moving. And if we, in our too-much isolation, forget that, our action upon it must be feeble and ineffective. Not that in this spirit of accommodation a single truth or shade of truth should be modified, or that a single principle should be obscured or disavowed; no "jot or tittle" of that grand system of truth can be dispensed with or lightly esteemed," Heaven and earth may pass away, but my word shall not pass away." But the extent of adaptation meant is quite compatible with a rigid adherence to principle. It is of that kind which looks upon the world about us as a living and powerful reality, exercising an immense influence for good or for evil; upon men as the subjects of human feelings, frailties, and trials; and which, seizing upon these varied experiences, mundane and human, as they rise, converts them into lessons of wisdom and illustrations of principles. It is thus that, without depriving one truth of its sharp and definite distinctiveness, we give to it the "form and pressure" of the time, and gain audience of willing ears that else had been closed to our teaching. Indeed, only in its fitness to the wants of the times can our religion become a potent influence. Wanting this adaptation, it lacks the fulcrum whence it could move the world, and the great lever of truth lies useless. Ends and intentions are insubstantial things if the means are absent that couple them with effects. And though the power for good in the principles which we profess is immeasurable as omnipotence, yet must that power remain in abeyance so long as we fail to give it adaptation to the character and necessities of the age. In a word, we must cease to present our religion as an abstraction. It must be shown to be something for the every-day world. Let it mingle in the busy stir of human life and action, softening asperities and breathing charity, quelling injustice and fostering goodness, battling selfishness in all its strongholls, and sending abroad the spirit of selfsacrificing love, and it will become a reality and a power in the world equal to the accomplishment of its spiritual and social regeneration.

P.

N. S. No. 147.-VOL. XIII.

M

90

THEOLOGY, INTELLECT, AND IMAGINATION.

(A DIALOGUE.)

Old Churchman. I promised to give your minister a fair hearing; I have done so, as well as I could, but the truth is, I could not understand him; he talked of a Trinity of Essentials in the Divine Nature, or Person of Christ, comparing them to our soul, body, and operation. Now what can I understand about Essentials? I never met with anything in the Bible about Essentials in the Divine Nature.

New Churchman. Tell me, then, what you understand by the words, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

O. C. Why, what is generally understood,-three Divine Persons, who are one God.

N. C. And you can understand this without any difficulty?

O. C. I can understand what the words mean; we all know what a person is; but I cannot understand what you mean when you talk of Essentials.

N. C. And you are satisfied with the meaning of the words—three Persons and one God; what ideas, then, do these words suggest to you? O. C. I present to my imagination three Divine Persons, and three human persons are of course the types of them. There is no difficulty in thinking of three Divine Persons in this way, and therefore I say that I understand the explanation commonly given of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

N. C. But how can you understand that the three Divine Persons are one God?

O. C. Oh! that is an impenetrable mystery; I leave that.

N. C. Now we of the New Church, on the contrary, can see clearly that three Divine Essentials, namely, the Divinity, Humanity, and Divine Proceeding, are meant by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and constitute the one God our Lord Jesus Christ, for the Father is in Him, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him. And as we find no difficulty in seeing what these essentials mean, when we are assisted by the comparison of them to the Soul, Body, and Operation, as forming one individual person or man, so we find no difficulty in seeing how these three Essentials, consisting of the Divinity, Humanity, and Operation, or Divine Proceeding, form the one God. But as for three Divine Persons forming one God, that, as you say, is indeed a dark and impenetrable mystery! Now it appears to me, that so long as you can think of the three Persons of your Trinity clearly, you care not how

obscurely you think of the one God, or of the Divine Unity; but our minds are so constituted that we could not rest with such an obscure idea of the oneness or unity of the One God; and so we were led to seek for a clear idea, until we found it in the writings of Swedenborg. How is it that you can feel satisfied with so mysterious a notion of the one God,―a notion that gives you no idea whatever of the unity of God, but on the contrary, the tripersonality is destructive of all idea of unity?

O. C. I don't know what to say to that. Certainly it is very desirable to get at a clear idea of the Divine Unity, if it be a true one, and I confess that the idea of three Persons is very far from suggesting it. And so you say that if I had a clear idea of the three Essentials, so as to see what they mean, I should get a clear idea of the Divine Unity. But, as I remarked just now, we do not find three Essentials mentioned in the Bible.

N. C. And do you find anything mentioned in the Bible about three Divine Persons? Certainly not. You find three names there, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But what are terms without a distinct idea being attached to them, but husks without grain-mere chaff? To make any use of the words, we must attach ideas to them, and every man has an equal right to attach such ideas to them as he thinks most consistent with truth. There is no more authority for attaching the idea of Persons to the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, than the idea of Essentials; the difference of interpretation lies in intelligence and clearness, not in ecclesiastical authority.

O. C. But surely it is difficult to use such terms as Father and Son, without thinking at the same time of Persons; is it not?

N. C. It is difficult, certainly,—to a child; or to any person who has never been instructed that God cannot literally beget sons distinct from Himself, just as a human son by generation, is a distinct person from his father; for if God could do this, he could beget to Himself any number of fellow-gods. And does not this consideration shew, that to attach the idea of person to the terms Father and Son, according to the appearance suggested by those terms, is a very serious mistake?

O. C. Certainly that appears to be a strong point. To attach an idea leading to such consequences, seems to be a serious matter. But do not some writers say that a peculiar idea, in this case, and not the common idea, is to be attached to the word Person?

N. C. When you give up the only authorised idea of person, you give up all idea, for what authority can be attached to an unauthorised idea ? You may, if you please, attach the idea of three Essentials to the words