the writer of the report himself, and much less by the body of which he was a member. Had Mr. Mason been in any degree of that celestial simplicity, about which he discourses so eloquently in his late address to the General Convention; or had he been at all free from those "coveted redundancies over and above the simple perceptions of celestial love," of which he therein speaks; he would have passed by unnoticed this want of courtesy, so grievously complained of, as the peccadillo of a spiritual youngling, which so venerable and venerated a general body of the church as the General Conference might well afford to overlook.

But we cannot-we ought not to-shut our eyes to what we believe to be the truth. It was not the Central Convention, or its errors, which were aimed at. Our body was indeed the target: but we cannot resist the conviction that there was something behind, which the shot was designed to hit, after we had been pierced. It was the order of the trine, as established by the Eastern Convention, and decreed to be true by the General Conference, which was to be assailed through us as it had been for years in the conference itself. Thus both the Eastern Convention and the General Conference were to be flogged over our shoulders, if not shot through our body. Hence neither the Eastern nor the Western Convention took any notice of Mr. Mason's letter. They could not notice it without a most glaring and unkind want of respect to us; they could not publish it without an equally glaring disrespect to themselves. And we now see that the General Conference too did not act upon the resolutions condemnatory of us, which Mr. Mason threatened, "God willing," to lay before it. It has not published his letter to us, nor any part of his report, as its last president, by which his rebuke of us was laid before it. Thus it has not assumed his action, in the capacity of its president, as its own; and we are left free to treat it with the respect and affection which we have always felt for it, and to continue our communications with it, as if no insults had been offered to us in its high and venerable name.

We say the order of the trine was assailed through us. For proof of this look at the resolutions, which Mr. Mason, in his letter to our body, says he intends to lay before the Fortieth General Conference, and compare their contents with what may easily be discerned to be his sentiments on the same subjects, in the communications to the Twenty-Sixth General Conference, which called forth the able reports to that body in 1833. What those sentiments were, may be gleaned from those reports (which see, Ap. Nos. XLVIII. and XLIX.); and it cannot but be seen, in the comparison we suggest, that Mr. Mason, by his letter, sent to all three of our conventions, to make known throughout the United States," "the sentiments generally entertained in" England, purposely designed to mingle in our meal the same leaven which had fermented the new church in his country, and, by submitting his proposed resolutions to the conference of which he was the presiding officer, with equal directness of purpose, designed to agitate again in that body the question of the trine, with the end of undoing what had been so often previously done in the way of its

settlement. The leaven has worked here, and the Western Convention, under the lead of certain noves homines, has repudiated the trinal order of its ministry. The same leaven is working in the Central › Convention, under similar leadings. We shall not be surprised, if we discern, by and by, its workings in the Eastern Convention too. But now a faithful historical sketch of the present state of this question in the new church of England requires us to look at the Minutes of its last conference. Here we find Mr. Mason following up his purpose. In his capacity of late president, he reports the letter which he had written to our body, and of course submits to the body over which he had presided his resolutions, in which he tries to make it resolve," that this conference, having reference to minute 49 of the Journal No. VIII. of the Central Convention, not received at the last conference, is of opinion," that said Central Convention has, for certain reasons, been guilty of a bad spirit and a great want of proper courtesy to this conference; and that the order of the trine, as this conference had previously deduced and determined it from the writings of Swedenborg, especially Coronis 17, is founded only on "superstitious conclusions sought to be established thereby." This, we say, is virtually the purport of Mr. Mason's resolutions; and we say he submitted them to the fortieth conference-although the fact *Our authority for this assertion is derived from an article, over Mr. Mason's initials, in No. 98 of the Intellectual Repository, or the number for February last, p. 49. In this article Mr. Mason lays before the church at large, what he had intended to lay before the General Conference in its last meeting, his views on the "trine in the church" and in express allusion to this, the 129th minute of that meeting, he says, "The conference has requested the opinion of the societies on this proposition, and it seems perfectly fitting that the originator of that proposition should place the general view which he takes of the subject before the societies in the Magazine for their consideration, seeing that it so far found favor with the conference as to be intermediately entertained." This, surely, is clear enough in showing who the originator of the above proposition was.

We may also observe, in this article, unmistakeable proofs of the drift which we ascribe to this proposition: Mr. Mason not only reiterates, as his, the arguments which we have seen formerly advanced against the trine as declared to be the true order in England, but he expressly recommends for adoption by the General Conference, in its next meeting, that new arrangement of the ministry on the most simple plan" by which the Western Convention in this country has decreed that "there is from henceforth to be only one class or order of ministers in its connection." We, in this country, who know who it was that led the Western Convention in this new arrangement," this "radical and highly important change in its form," (see Jour. of 15th West. Con. p. 6,) can have no difficulty in seeing that this is but an echo of Mr. Mason's views, as set forth in his letter to us, across the Atlantic. Therefore, Mr. Mason. in endorsing this proceeding of the Western Convention, is but seconding his own motion in the General Conference. He is, in fact, seeking to bring about in that body too, such a new arrangement of its ministry as shall, in form as well as essence, reject the trinal principle, and substitute in its place the most simple plan" of "only one class or order of ministers." This, probably, is deemed one form of that "celestial simplicity" -lost to us in the fall-which is to be restored in the "yea, yea, nay, nay," of the New Jerusalem, that is "intended to be a church of celestial genius." And probably Mr. Mason thinks the millenium is already come, when this simplicity or oneness "in the arrangement of the new-church ministry is not to be seen in the light of rational investigation of what Swedenborg teaches from the Lord in the Word (although Swedenborg says this is the only way in which even spiritual truth-the spiritual sense of

that he did so does not appear on its minutes-because we presume he could not have violated his virtual oath to that effect. Of course the General Conference could not pass those resolutions without inscribing false on all its decisions respecting their subject matter, so the Word can be seen by man or the church in a natural state) is not to be seen by "the talented and lengthened argumentation," which necessarily comes "of evil," (as, for instance, Noble and Howarth's argumentation for the trinal order of the new-church ministry repeatedly referred to here; but not, of course, Mr. Mason's own " variety and ingenuity of subtle reasoning," on the materiality of the Lord's risen body, in his high if not ill tempered answer to Mr. Noble on that subject)—is not to be seen in any such lumen as this "legacy of the fall;" but is to be discerned in "the simple perceptions of celestial love," the brighter light of the wisdom of love," which, when it sheds "its mild and safe glory upon the delighted vision of our pliant and teachable minds," will enable us to assent to this "most simple plan" of "only one order" in our ministry, without asking any questions of those more active minds that take the lead among" us, and give "tone and tendency to the proceedings" of the "general assemblies of the Lord's church." But, for our part, as we have not by any means come through regeneration into this celestial state of simple perception, we need, we ask for, we demand from Mr. Mason, and the other more active minds which are taking the lead in the General Conference of England, a clearer rational demonstration than he or any of them have yet given us, from the Word and the writings of Swedenborg, that celestial simplicity, in the external order of the New Jerusalem, will produce an arrangement of her ministers in only one order instead of a trine of distinct grades or discrete degrees. For our part, we think the new church does, in this respect, most clearly and expressly teach multiplicity in unity, and not simplicity in unity. This latter is too unitarian for us. We take our stand upon the universal law in God, infinite things are distinctly one." And on this ground assume that every unity must be a complex of distinct constituents. We therefore hold to a trinity in the unity of the new-church ministry, and not to any "most simple plan" of "only one order" in it. And until Mr. Mason demonstrates to our rational mind from Swedenborg, that "no good reason can be given" "for distinguishing and continuing the distinction, between ordaining or other ministers," or between the three grades of a proper and suitable new christian ministry, we shall declare and contend that he, in seeking to "obliterate the distinction," in the General Conference, as a purely imaginary one, as the Western Convention has done," is aiming a blow at the essential order, and so at the very vitals, of the new church as visible body on earth!

And seeing that this is Mr. Mason's drift in the proposition above quoted, we cannot but express our surprise, that the editor of the Intellectual Repository should append, to his article just referred to, remarks, without any limitation, in confirmation and illustration of the view taken of this subject in the above paper." The editor doubtless intended to confirm and illustrate only what seemed to be Mr. Mason's argument, from Coronis 17, that Swedenborg did not intend, in that passage, to sanction in the New Jerusalem the episcopal order of the trine, as it has existed in the catholic church, and in the protestant churches which have sprung from it. And here it gives us pleasure to say, that, in this argument, we most fully agree with the editor in these remarks, and so far with Mr. Mason. But we cannot agree with Mr. Mason in his argument for a trine from Coronis 17, when it leads him to the implied conclusion that there is no good and practical reason for distinguishing between ordaining or other ministers," so that "the purely imaginary" distinction which has hitherto been established, may be obliterated in the arrangement of new-church ministers, and a more simple arrangement of them be made into "only one order," in which there shall be virtually no distinction between them: for, in continuous degrees, as of more to less light, there is no visible limit, as the signs or tokens" of the degree of official function, scope of administration, and grade of subordination, by which alone ministers of a church can be arranged in trinal order. (U. T. 680.) And it was to us a matter of inexpressible astonishment, that a man of Mr. Mason's reputed intelligence, should think that he is arguing for a

66

far as they pertained to the question of the trine, for thirty-three years. Therefore those resolutions do not appear on the minutes as having been presented and acted upon. The conference gives them the silent go by: and "the correspondence, having been read, which the late president (in the exercise of the discretion committed to him during the time the conference is not sitting) entered into with the American Conventions; resolved, That it is not expedient specially to notice it further in the Minutes." Would that the late president, in the exercise of the discretion committed to him, had acted a little more discreetly! Would that he had waited until he had first submitted his resolutions to the General Conference, and permitted that body to express for itself the sentiments of the church in England in condemnation of our Journal and its contents! Would that he, "in the exercise of the discretion committed to him during the time the conference was not sitting," had, "from a regard to that pacific policy," which he had reason to believe the conference itself would have acted on, kept his resolutions to himself, and not suffered them to "pass" to this country, with their insulting, fermenting and disorganizing tendencies! But that would not have effected Mr. Mason's purpose of assailing the principle of a ministerial trine in the church in his own country, as well as in ours. From which purpose, he is not to be diverted by the failure of the conference to notice his resolutions, or his condemnation of us. Hence we find him submitting, or causing to be submitted, the following proposition, "which was included in the notices of motion in the secretary's circular," and which we extract from number 129 of the Minutes of the Fortieth General Conference :

trine, when he comes to such a conclusion! But our astonishment ceases when we see him still contending, that to assign to a lower grade of the clergy the administration of the rite of baptism, while a higher grade administers the rite of the holy supper-an order most clearly indicated in the Word, by the Lord's assigning baptism to his disciples, while he himself, though he baptized not, administered in instituting the supperis a violation of the divine injunction not to put asunder what " God hath joined together." For, to our minds, it is an evidence of very low intelligence in the things of the Word and of the church, when a minister of more than twenty years' standing in our church cannot see, not only, (with Mr. Noble,) " that that divine saying can have nothing to do with the subject," but also that the Lord, who is God, did himself, when on earth, actually separate these ordinances, instead of joining them together!

In fine, we think that Mr. Mason, under the appearance of arguing for a trine of ecclesiastical uses, is really seeking to establish a simple unity or parity of ecclesiastical functionaries for their performance in the arrangement of ministers which is to constitute the external ecclesiastical order" of our church. This, we are confident, is the drift of the proposition which he has moved in the General Conference. And we are not less sorry, than surprised, that the editor of the Intellectual Repository did not point this out, in a qualification of the remarks which he has made to confirm and illustrate the view taken of this subject" in Mr. Mason's article on "The Trine in the Church." Surely every attentive reader of that article in this connection must see that we have been justified by it in saying, Mr. Mason has designed, by his letter to us, and by his submission of this proposition to the General Conference, to agitate again in that body the question of the trine, with the expectation of bringing about at last a repudiation of the trinal arrangement of the new church ministry in that country as well as in this. And thus do we prove that the order of the trine was assailed through us.

The notice of motion was as follows:

That it appears that the principle on which a distinction has heretofore been drawn between the ordaining ministers and the other ministers, has never yet been declared.

That the principle which ought to regulate the distinction between the two classes of ministers is this, that the ordaining ministers on whom devolves the duty of carrying out the votes of the conference (that is, of the churches assembled by their ministers and representatives in the General Conference) consenting to new ordinations, ought to be persons of great experience in the pastoral office, and thence best able to advise the individuals whom they ordain, concerning the various points of duty and demeanor connected with the pastoral office.

That every minister shall become an ordaining minister after having officiated during twenty years from the date of his ordination; but that no period during which he shall not have been actively employed, shall be counted as part of the twenty years.

That the application for the removal of the name of a minister, to the list of ordaining ministers, shall be made by the society of which he is the minister, or to which he last ministered, and that a statement shall accompany such application under the minister's hand, declaring that he has officiated during the prescribed period, and specifying the societies to which he has officiated, and the respective periods during which he has officiated to each society.

That it be optional to any minister, on the removal of his name to the list of ordaining ministers, to apply to an ordaining minister with a view to the celebration of such removal, by the performance of the service in the Liturgy, called the "Consecration Service," according to his individual view of the utility or propriety of such celebration.

That [as no one can pretend for a moment, that the performance or nonperformance of the "Consecration Service," can increase or diminish the suitability of an ordaining minister for the discharge of his peculiar duty,] the non-performance of that service, shall not be deemed any bar to an ordaining minister discharging the duty of ordaining any person whom he may be called to ordain, under the authority of the conference, and according to the conference regulations on that head.

Nobody can mistake the drift of this proposition. No one can fail to see whence it comes and whither it tends. That it involves principles against the trine as previously determined to be the true order of the ministry by the General Conference, no one can be so blind as not to see. There is certainly natural perception enough to see this, however little there may of that celestial perception, which Mr. Mason thinks ought to exist in the general bodies of our church, and which he probably requires to see that the distinction, between the ordaining and ordained ministers, on which he founds his proposed order, is drawn from "the testimony of the Holy Word and of the new-church writings." But he, doubtless, thinks that his observation to the General Convention, in his late address to that body,"when general assemblies of the Lord's church take place, the tone and tendency of their proceedings must mainly and essentially depend upon the tone and tendency of the more active minds that take the lead amongst them,"-must apply to the conference of which he is a member, as well as to any other general assembly of the church. Hence he must regard the decisions of the General Conference hitherto upon the questions of the trine in the ministry, as nothing