planting. My mother and many other relatives also received the same faith, and hence it happened that the memorable relations of the "Universal Theology" became the companions of my childhood. I remember a little old three-volume copy of the work (I think it was three volumes) being one of my chief playthings, and believe that I could not be more than six years old when I used to turn it over, skipping the "dry" parts, which contain the dogmatic propositions of the author, and fastening, with the utmost interest, on the wonders of the spiritual world contained in the Memorabilia. I read them with as much avidity as The Arabian Nights, but I perceived that the one was fiction and the other truth. That truth never deserted me, nor seemed to admit of the remotest doubt, although, in that course of development which characterises young minds, I met with various infidel writings, and particularly remember that those of Paine gave me some trouble. His political works also I read, and when fresh from their perusal, wrote to my esteemed relative, and no doubt gave a tinge of Paine's peculiarities to my letter. Mr. Harrison replied to them in the letter of which I subjoin a copy. The effect of it was instantaneous, deep, and lasting. Perhaps it is not too much to say that my whole life, as to faith, has drawn its character from that letter. Can I then do wrong in offering to other young people the same opportunity of establishing their spiritual conviction, and of comforting their troubled minds, when appearances bear false witness against the power and mercy of Divine Providence? The letter, indeed, as I now read it, does not seem to contain such marvellous power; it is distinguished rather by an amiable and perspicuous dilution of simple truth; but the reader cannot fail to be impressed with the earnest and sincere spirit of the writer, nor to feel that sentiment of secure possession of the truth which made his mildness firm, and gave weight to his simplicity. I am, Sir, yours respectfully,

Belper, March 24, 1846.

"MY DEAR JOHN,

66

J. W. HANCOCK.

Chorlton-row, Manchester, Dec. 25th, 1820.

"I received yours of the 27th October and the 10th ult. on the 23rd instant. You remind me of having written something which I had entirely forgotten; but though I had certainly forgotten what I had written to you, I assure you it was not because I did not remember you. "For the expression of your esteem and affection I sincerely thank you, and as sincerely hope you will never have reason to believe that either the one or the other has been misplaced.

"I believe, my dear John, you are very far from being singular in

your opinion respecting the general character of the inhabitants of

I lament the fact (having no doubt it is one), that our natural wants generally present themselves first,' and that they generally have our first consideration;' but if I regret this fact, it is because in such a state we reverse the order prescribed by that Infallible Instructor who says: 'Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all things shall be added unto you.' (Matt. vi. 33.)

"

'You have a few words, my dear relative, respecting the domination of the few, and the submission and privations of the many. I very much fear I am not qualified to make such remarks on this subject as would be generally useful. I believe my opinions, as connected with this topic are very far indeed from being popular. This would be very discouraging, certainly, if the hacknied aphorism, ' Vox populi vox Dei,' ('The voice of the people is the voice of God,') were indisputable; but if the voice of the people is the voice of God,-if popular sentiment or popular opinion is the truth of the Divinity, then it is quite time for me to re-consider the principles of a certain celebrated northern philosopher and theologian, whose tenets, I apprehend, are not likely to become suddenly popular. But here I beg not to be misunderstood. I am not assuming that you subscribe to the maxim under consideration: no,-but I have, of late, pretty frequently read, that sentiments universally proclaimed and universally assented to, cannot be erroneous. But I do most fearlessly maintain, that universal sentiment or popular opinion will never be correct till men are universally benevolent and virtuous. If that is the case now; if the many, or the majority are not vicious and selfish; if self-love and the love of the world are not more general than their opposites, I candidly confess that I am severe in my judgment or mistaken in my opinion. I wish my observation,-I wish my experience would allow me to admit that I may be wrong in this case; but it would be a kind of affectation to write on this subject as if I could feel any doubt. I know, my dear relation, that there are many, very many persons, who believe that a few can be, and really are, the cause of the afflictions, the sufferings, and privations of the many. But whether I am right or wrong, I declare most seriously, and at the same time with feelings of tenderness and affection for our common errors and weaknesses, that there is no exploded error to which I would not as readily subscribe as a truth, as I could admit this to be possible. I deny distinctly, unequivocally, and positively, that rulers, even though most wicked and unprincipled, can cause sufferings and afflictions to the governed. I am fully aware that, were I to utter this sentiment to a promiscuous multitude, I should be gazed at as a lunatic, or the follower of some madman ;

but I have read something of the madness of the people.' However, as I ought not to assert any thing which I do not think myself capable of proving, or, at any rate, not to express sentiments for which I can give no reason, I will now say something in the way of explanation.

"I have asserted, that even wicked men entrusted with power cannot be the cause of suffering or affliction to those who are the subjects of their misrule. Now, the cause of every thing is to be traced to the world of causes; but in this world, and especially by men of this world, the cause is invariably put for the effect, and the effect for the cause. The cause of all our afflictions is no other than the corruption of our nature. Were we not corrupt by nature, affliction could no more annoy us in this life, than evil or evil spirits can disturb the felicity of the angels of the highest heaven. Bad men may occasion sorrow and trouble to others; but, my dear John, the occasion of a thing is not the cause. Am I growing too abstruse? I am sure I wish to be otherwise. Is it difficult to perceive that the instrument is not the principal? Now many persons maintain that wicked rulers are the principal cause of every apparent consequence of their measures. I affirm, however, that they are not the cause; that they are not the principals, but merely permitted instruments. What, then, or where is the cause? I repeat, that the cause of all our afflictions is to be found in the depravity, the degeneracy, or the impurity of the sufferers. We all, without hesitation, admit that our Lord is infinite in love and mercy; but is He not also infinite in power? And were we pure, were we indeed the faithful subjects of His government,— 'a handful of men' could no more interrupt our happiness or abridge our comforts, than they can hurl Him from His throne, or alter the apparent course of the sun.

6

When the wicked walk on every side, the vilest men are exalted.' Ah! but it will be said, and Vox populi' will thunder it in my ears, We are not the wicked who walk on every side, though the vilest men are exalted. It is the rulers, and they only, that are wicked. Indeed! then happy are we in spite of all that a handful of men can project, or a host of men can execute; happy under every yoke that men may seem to subject us to, and happy in despite of every affliction under which we may groan; for, in the estimate of true humility, perhaps a hundred thousand years' of affliction would be thought a cheap price if it could purchase eternal happiness. But the voice of the natural man, who is never willing to admit that there can be anything amiss at home, replies, There is no occasion for so vast, so extravagant a price in the purchase of happiness. I know, indeed, that the Being who has the sole disposal of real happiness, is far from making high or great demands, if we could N. S. NO. 77.-VOL. VII.

consider it little to part with our high notions of our little selves. But are we Christians? and what then was the conduct of that great and holy One from whom we take our religious denomination;—what was His example under the oppressive and galling tyranny of a handful' of wicked rulers? He was abused, he was wronged, he was reviled, scorned, despised, and most grievously afflicted; yet he undoubtedly taught and practised submission. But although he certainly did submit to his merciless and relentless persecutors, still in his submission there was by no means any sanction of their evil deeds; on the contrary, he bore the strongest testimony against their enormities. But he did submit. To his immediate followers his precepts and example in this particular were exceedingly unpalatable. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples how that he must go into Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord; this shall not be done unto thee. But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.' (Matt. xvi. 21, 22, 23.) Peter here seems to express a becoming abhorrence at the idea of cruelty and injustice; but he represented the natural mind, to which the doctrine of submission is never savoury.

"Were I to address such language to some persons as I have used in this letter, I should anticipate a question in a tone of triumph; because I am aware that they would think one question quite sufficient to put my reasoning down, and overturn my arguments altogether. I should be asked, 'If it is denied that wicked men can cause the innocent to suffer, how are the sufferings of the Lord while on earth to be accounted for, since no one will question His innocence?' I am quite sensible of every difficulty to which the position I have assumed may expose me; still, I assure you, I feel none of these difficulties, if my position is understood. For, with regard to the anticipated objection, permit me to ask, what made it possible for our Lord, while on earth, to experience sorrow or to feel affliction? Was it not that he had assumed the nature of man? He took upon himself the human nature, and, to answer his divine and merciful purpose, he took that nature from a race of men the most degenerate, the most depraved and diabolical in nature, of any that then or ever existed. Here, then, once more, I see the consequence of mistaking the cause for the effect.

"But I perceive my paper is nearly full. Should you see occasion to object to any thing I have advanced in this letter, I invite you to do so

freely. I could say much more without exhausting my subject; but I shall pause till I have the happiness of a line or two from you.

I remain, my dear John, your affectionate friend,

"W. HARRISON."

UNIFORMITY OF DOCTRINE IN THE NEW CHURCH CONCERNING THE TRINITY.

SIR,

To the Editor of the NEW JERUSALEM MAGAZINE.

Whatever doubt may attend the advocacy of uniformity of worship amongst us, none can be entertained as to the necessity of uniformity in setting forth our fundamental doctrines. I have found a want of consistency and certainty in some New Church preachers and writers (to whom, however, I shall not personally refer), in explaining our fundamental doctrine-the doctrine of the Trinity. It appears to me that some New Church advocates, in a temporary forgetfulness that Swedenborg is their teacher, have allowed themselves to be carried away by impressions obtained from other sources. They have been, and are accustomed to hear of the Eternal Trinity, and so they have overlooked that Swedenborg does not present to us in his doctrine of THE Trinity, implied by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, an Eternal TRINITY, but a TRINITY made and provided in time. They have overlooked the plain fact, that if the Trinity of the New Testament be an Eternal Trinity, there must have been an Eternal Son as well as an Eternal Father; but we are accustomed to argue, and very justly, that an Eternal Son is a contradiction in terms, since the word son always implies a beginning to be.

Swedenborg says, (T. C. R. 170.) "In the Christian Church, at this day, a Divine Trinity is acknowledged as existing before the creation of the world: * * * * but that the Trinity consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was provided and made after God became incarnate, consequently after the creation of the world, is evident from all that has been said above." The heading of the article, also, is equally specific. It is this: "That before the creation of the world, this Trinity [as previously explained] did not exist, but that it was provided and made since the creation, when God was made incarnate, and then centred in the Lord God, the Redeemer and Saviour Jesus Christ." 66 This Trinity" had been explained as answering to the human trinity of soul, body, and operation in man; and it had been declared (n. 168.) that