The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1823-10-17

Tending US against the assaults Of evil spirits
and by virtue of this operation he IL call
ed the holy spirit ; for his original nnmani-
Tested divinity is called the father his
divine humanity is the son /; and the divine
operation proceeding from both Is the holy
spirit. New, Sir, you will surely not deny
that we III least know what we mean by
| the Lords divine humanity ,and by Trinity
in the person Of our Lord Jesus Christ
We worship him alone, as our creator froIn
the beginning, our redeemer IN lime, and
uur regener at0T to eternity, and by being
bapiised inthc name sfthe Father, the Son.
and the Holy Ghost, We believe Is meant
that we are 60 b. Initiated IN the christian
church, by being Instructed in divine truth,
(which is represented by wat-r) concerning
our Lord Jesus Christ, as 10 the name or
quality OF LIS manifested divinity, of his
divine humanity, and of the operation Of
both upon the minds Of men. That our
views of the Trinity are conformshle 10 the
scriptures has been fully demos dfaied not
only by the works of Baron Swedenborg, but
also BY Messrs. llendmarsh and Gloves
whose works on hat subject, have fairly
sd.nced all opponents IN England. To
| these refer all those who seriously desire
tn examine this snhJcct, and shall add on
| ly few words 10 prove that ii at least
deserves To be examined. That our Lord
| Jesus Christ is the Son, is admitted by ALL
and that he is the Father, and also the H0-
ly Spirit he has told us as plainly as words
can express a meaning. Suppose you had
for sore days togrther been in company
with gentleman to whom you were well
known by reputation, and who in yonr
presence should express desire to be in
| troduced To Mr.. Hurt or 10 see him, and
were to answer him is it possible, sir, that
yed have been so long in company without
Knowing me WhosOever sees me, sees
Nj Hurt.-0ught there after this to be
any doubt on his mind concerning your
identity with the very Dir. Hurt whom he
meant, and if you were not the same per
son whom be meant, could he possibly
ascribe your answer to any thing hut igno
rance of his meaning, or a wish t0 deceive
him Now apply this TO our Lords an
swer 10 Philips question, IN John, chap.
xiv. 0, 10. Philip saith unto him, Lord
shew us the Father, and it sufbccth. Jesus
saith unto him, have been 81 long time
with you, and yet thou hast not known me
Philip &? He that hath seen me, hath seen
the Father and how sayest thou show ms
the Father Now say, either the Lord
was ignorant Of whom Philip meant by the |
Father, or he meant 10 deceive him. or the |
Lord is the Father-and one with the Fla |
thcr not by love merely, but as the soul Is |
one with the body You viii admit the
scriptures cannot contradict Themselves
and there is not to be found in them
any passage which asserts that the Lord
Jesus is not the Father ; but because in
some passages he speaks of The Father as
| greater than hinseli-and prays to him
YOU conclude perhaps that he is not the
| Father. But ls any conclusion of human
reason to inpeach the veracity of his word
Now upon our principles we can readily
explain these apparent contradictions by
showing in what they originate for ave
say that the scriptures are written in many
instances according to appearances. When
the Lord was pleased to place himself in
states of humiliation for the purpose of
encountering temptations, he thought and
felt like a man, in whom the properties Of
Jehovah were quiescent, and obscured by
those of the son of Mary but when he.
thought and felt by virtue of those of his
mind, whereby, 10 consequence of having
overcome temptations, all the correspond
ing properties of the son OF Mary had been
dlssipated, and these ofJehovah manifested
| in their place, he perceived and felt their
unian with, and emanation frem, his own
divine soul, which was JehUvak, and he he
came conscious, aud declared to his disc-
plies that he was the Father. Besides the
passage quoted. must beg leave to call
your attention to the following passages,
which, after what has been promised. speak
for themselves. john, chap. xii. ~, Ia,
Matthew. chap. ri. 27-John, v. a6 vi. 46
and 50, 67, 68-viM. Xxi. 81, SO xiv.
16 to l8--xi. l5--Apocalypse xxi. 6, T.
With respect to our Lords identity with
the holy spirit, have to observe that since
my last letter, a friend has pointed oat TO
rse, the passage To which you refer, To
prove the personality Of the holy spirit, aud
in which a masculine pronoun is actually
substituted for "A neuter noun; in John,
chap xvi. IS. But you will observe that
this proves nothing against our assertion,
that the holy spirit is only another name
for our Lord Jesus Christ, when he is CON
sdered as operating upon us by The omni-
potence Of his divinity through the instro-
mentality of his divine humanity. But for
your purpose, if it proves any thing, it
proves too much. For you viii admit that
the force of your argument consists in this,
that the praneun masculine, ekcinos, must
refer te a male bet male is either an an
imal or man-and as the term person
means man, therefore the word pneuma
must mean person when used as identicI
WITH or analogous to, the term man. This
we will grant you, and you know that an
trpersonalst writers prove the same thing
of the father and the son, viz that the ia
ther is a person, the son is a person, aud
the holy spirit person. But this proof
rests upon the real or analogous identity Of
| Il -