draw the authorities from the Word and the writings of Swedenborg directly. The authorities are drawn mainly from those sources, but not wholly for there has been some, nay, not a little, original investigation-though that investigation may have been spread through some fifteen or twenty years of reading and study, without express reference to the proceedings of the Central Convention, and, indeed, for the most part, before its existence. This statement is made here, that the strenuous opposers of the principles of our former report, both in this country and in England, but especially in England, may see that we found the groundwork of those principles in the formal declarations of the english church, as officially communicated to our convention. For it will be observed that this last report to the english conference, expressly says, "it is scarcely necessary to do more than to refer to the results of the labors of former committees, as reported in the Appendix to the Minutes of the 23d, 26th and 27th General Conferences." These former reports, therefore, being thus referred to, are in fact included in this last report. Consequently, the authorities of those are the authorities of this. And hence we now print, in an appendix to our present report, those reports which are above cited, that they may be documents of reference for the church in this country, together with the one which is printed in an appendix to Journal No. VII., and as furnishing, with that, many of the authorities upon which the principles of our own reports to the Central Convention are founded. (See Ap. Nos. XLVIII. XLIX. and L.)

Mr. Goyder says the members of the church in England have generally held to a trine in the ministry. This implies, what we have fully seen, that there were particular exceptions to this assertion. And among these were the Rev. William Mason. We mention him here by name, because, in his official capacity of president of the English General Conference, he has undertaken to administer a severe rebuke to the Central Convention for its "forced construction and misapplication of passages in the writings of Swedenborg, cited in the journal [No. VIII.] in support of the superstitious conclusions [respecting the trine in the ministry] sought to be established thereby." He felt it to be right, and to be his duty, as the presiding officer of the body which represents the whole new church in England, to send copies of his communication to our convention to the General and Western Conventions also, "in order that the sentiments generally entertained in that country by members of the new church might not be unknown throughout the United States." Knowing, as he did, that those conventions had drawn the same conclusions, in regard to the trine in the ministry, which we had, from the writings of Swedenborg, he probably designed, in sending to them, his communication to us, to administer to them also their share of our castigation. They, especially the General Convention, must, undoubtedly, have felt under great obligations to the president of the Thirty-Ninth General Confe rence for communicating to them the information, that, according to "the sentiments generally entertained in England," the trine in the ministry, which they had deduced and carried out for years in this

REPORT ON THE TRINE.

country, was deemed to be founded on only "superstitious conclusions," drawn from the "forced construction and misapplication of passages in the writings of Swedenborg"-more particularly "the unwarranted construction of Coronis, 17." To have judged from the official proceedings of the English General Conference, as set forth in the Minutes of that body, all the conventions, and all the members of the new church, "throughout the United States," might have supposed that directly contrary sentiments were "generally entertained in that country by members of the new church" and it was certainly charitable in Mr. Mason, if the reverse were in fact the case, to strive to have this fact known by the whole new church in this country. But we apprehend that it will be hard for Mr. Mason to make it appear that he is a truer representative of what sentiments are generally entertained in England than the General Conference.

We shall feel it cur duty to publish and review the communication made by the Rev. Mr. Mason, in the name of the English General Conference, to the Central Convention. We shall do so in immediate connection with this report. And with unfeigned sorrow do we feel compelled to say we think it must appear, from what is here shown, that Mr. Mason has most unwarrantably availed himself of his temporary station of president of the General Conference, to give currency in the United States to the views of himself or of his party in England, by clothing them with the official sanction of that highly respected body of the general church. The Minutes of that body, and the Rev. Mr. Goyder, in its name, both declare, that the members of the church in England have generally held to a trine in the ministry as we do. It may be that very many members of the new church in that country hold views different from ours and similar to Mr. Mason's. It is certain that the suffrages, in twenty-six communications "from various societies and individuals," were in favor of his views about the time of the twenty-sixth conference; although the weight of argument-which means the force of truth-and the decisions of that conference, were against them. Still Mr. Mason ought not to have said, as president of the conference, that his views were generally prevalent in England, when his assertion is against all its previous official declarations. He might have said, that his views, and those of others in England, differed from the previous official declarations of the body over which he was then presiding, as they had been previously communicated to the church in this country; and thus he would have made known officially to the new church in this country an historical fact, which is here, perhaps, first elicited. For we have seen that Mr. Mason could not agree with the first committee, appointed by the thirty-fifth conference, in a report on the trine, which should affirm and extend the principles of the reports of former committees of the conference. Those who read those reports as now reprinted in our appendix, will see that his views were then the same as they are seen now to be in his communication to our convention; and they will also see how conclusively they were then confuted.

We may here observe, that Mr. Mason was very highly respected in this country, and especially by the members of the Central Con

vention. He had gained this respect by his published works, and by his letter to our body sent in the name of the english conference in 1843. It may be, because the response of our body to this letter was so highly commendatory of it, that Mr. Mason felt called on to communicate his individual views in dissent from, and even in reprehension of, those of the General Conference, of which he is a member, as made known to us in the report now under consideration. Seeing that he was a man of great intellectual and moral authority among us, he may have felt himself bound in conscience to exert his influence in saving us from its errors. He was certainly entitled to express his individual opinions to the General Convention; for that body had invited an expression of opinion upon the subject, not only from the conference, but also "from a committee of it, or from any individuals of which it is composed." And he probably intended to communicate his views to that body, and the whole church in the United States, through ours. Hence he communicated to our corresponding secretary the "Remarks on the Questions propounded in Minute 85 of the Conference of 1843," which he had "furnished to the committee appointed by Minute 86," in answer to the request of that conference "that all the members of the church" in England would "communicate their views on" the trine to said committee. These Remarks were written by Mr. Mason in July, 1844; and, subsequently seeing that the report differed widely from his views, he, in February, 1845, adds a postscript to his communication to our convention, in which he charges the committee of conference with being "too superstitious" in "drawing conclusions from Swedenborg's writings which were never intended to be drawn." This communication and its postscript are printed in Ap. IV. to Journal No. VII. pp. 58-64, immediately after the report above referred to.

From this it appears that Mr. Mason's charge against us of superstition in founding our views of a trine in the ministry upon the forced construction and misapplication of passages in the writings of Swedenborg, is only a repetition of a charge made by him against the thirtyseventh conference; for that conference "fully concurred in the view of the subject presented in this report" to it in 1844; and it was as much "too superstitious" in the conference, as in the writers of it, to draw the conclusions from Swedenborg's writings which the report did. Or it may be considered as nothing more nor less in fact than Mr. Mason's assuming that his particular understanding, (or that of those who agreed with him,) of what conclusions Swedenborg intended should be drawn from his writings, was the only true one; and that whoever had a different understanding must of course view them through a superstitious medium. Now, however little respect many, both in America and in England, may think due to the Central Convention and certainly it has no just claims to any very great acumen in discerning Swedenborg's intentions-might not some deference have been paid, even by Mr. Mason, to the declared understanding and conviction of the English General Conference; and was it, to say the least, courteous in him, who has since evinced so much sensibility of our want of courtesy to that highly respectable general body of the

REPORT ON THE TRINE.

church, to virtually charge it with being "Too superstitious" in adopting and sending to the new church in America, as the views of the new church in England, these conclusions in respect to the trine in the ministry, drawn from the writings of Swedenborg by a committee of its appointment?

Still Mr. Mason does not deny the doctrine of a trine in the ministry, but limits it to a trine of uses, and specifies the trines as he supposes they should exist both in the ministry and in the church. He seems opposed, as many are in this country, to the instituting of an english episcopacy, or a romish hierarchy, in the New Jerusalem. Yet, he does not clearly appear to be opposed to a personal trine; for his trine of ministerial uses seems to require a trine of ministers for their performance; but the use of superintending the ministry he thinks" may be carried on by the ministry alone, or in conjunction with the laity." This, according to former reports to the english conference, would be subordinating the centre to the circumference. But Mr. Mason may think that any interpretation of Swedenborg's writings which are so strict as to lead to such a forced conclusion, is superstition.

These views of the Rev. Mr. Mason have been referred to here, not simply because they are opposed to ours, or because we ourselves are opposed to him, (for we know not how nearly we may be found to agree with him,) but because the truth of history requires that we should show how the question of a trine in the ministry was viewed in England by a minority of the english conference at the time when the report before us expressed the views generally prevailing in that country on this subject.

The report on the trine which the thirty-seventh conference sent to America as expressive of the views prevailing in England on that subject, brings up the history of this question in that country to the present time. For in the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth conferences the question was no further agitated. The only proceeding, having any reference to the ministry, in these two conferences, was a resolution, "that the rules and regulations relating to the ministry be submitted to a committee of four members for the purpose of ascertaining whether any alterations can be made therein that will But it does not appear that this render such rules more efficient." led to any modification in the conference's views of a trine, or any further carrying out of the views previously expressed. We may therefore conclude, that the new church in England has, from virtually first to last, declared a trine in the ministry to be the true order of our church. The report before us shows, that this is a trine of persons in the external ministry, and not merely a trine of uses to be performed by only one rank or grade of ministers. Mr. Mason and others in England do indeed affirm that the external order of the new church may admit of the latter; but it must be observed, that the conference which adopted this report was composed of ten ministers and twenty-three representatives from thirteen societies, being, with the ministers not present and known to be in favor of the trine as

thus set forth, a large majority of the official representers of the whole church in England.

In conclusion of the historical sketch of the question of the trine in England, then, let us recapitulate these doings and declarations of the General Conference, as expressive of the views now entertained on this subject by the church in that country. In 1842, the conference appoints a committee to report to the church in America the views generally prevailing in England in respect to the trine. That committee cannot or does not agree in a report, and another committee is appointed by the conference in 1843. In 1844 this second committee reports:-1st. that there is great diversity of opinion in England as to the propriety of discussing this subject now-some assuming that the state of the church is not such as to warrant the statement of any principles that can be reduced to practice, and others alleging that no practical good, but only controversy, can arise from such discussion; so that the committee think the minds of the members of the new church, as it is to be eminently an internal one, are to be directed to internals, as the only secure way of promoting and establishing its real interests; for unless heavenly order is established within, all external order will be merely factitious and hollow:-2d. that any principles of uniformity, either as to the order of the ministry, or as to the order of church government, can never be established in respect to the Lord's new church; that such an establishment, if it could be made, is not desirable; that all externals in relation to these matters, will ever be accommodated to the peculiar genius and customs of nations, and even of the same people inhabiting different provinces of the same country; and, in proof of this, that Swedenborg never contemplated any changes in the external ecclesiastical order of the different churches which existed in his day:-3d. that, notwithstanding, there is, from divine order, a trine in all uses, corresponding to end, cause, and effect; that this order exists in the distinguished uses of the ministry; that this trine was represented by the jewish priesthood; and, although a mere representative priesthood itself is not continued from the jewish into the christian church, yet still the order of the trine, which that priesthood represented, being the universal divine order by which uses flow and are performed, that therefore the ministerial uses of the christian church must necessarily, as that church advances, be developed as a trine in its ministry. Having laid down these principles, the report of the committee proceeds at length to deduce the authorities from Swedenborg for both an essential and a formal trine in the ministry and in the church. From its authorities it concludes, "that there cannot be a full formation in any ministry, until it exists in a trine." As to the church, it concludes that there is an essential trine of those who are in love, those who are in wisdom, and those who are in use. In this trine the minister is included with the other members of the church as a spiritual brotherhood. From this essential trine in the church as a spiritual body there is deduced a formal trine of "offices, uses or duties, and thereby a trine of persons who are to fill the offices and perform the uses," in