MEETING OF JOINT COUNCILS 1891
New Church Life
Vol. XI. PHILADELPHIA, JANUARY, 1891=121. No. 1.
[Address all contributions for this department to the Rev. L. G. Jordan, Secretary, 2536 Continental Ave., Philadelphia, Pa.]
Wednesday, November 12th.
ON the day preceding the opening of the General Meeting, a Joint Councils Meeting was held, at which the relation of the General Church of Pennsylvania to the General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the United States of America was discussed, and as some of the things said were not brought forward in the same form at the General Meeting, it has been decided to publish the discussion.
The subject was introduced by the reading of the following letter which had been sent to the Council of the Laity.
FROM THE COUNCIL OF THE CLERGY TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LAITY.
"DR. G. R. STARKEY,
"Secretary council of the Laity, General Church of Pennsylvania.
"DEAR SIR:- At a meeting of the Council of the Clergy of the General Church of Pennsylvania, held on the 6th instant, it was agreed that the opinions of the Council on the relation of the General Church to the General Convention be transmitted to the Council of the Laity in preparation for a full discussion of the subject at the approaching meeting of the Joint Council at Pittsburgh.
"Attention was called by Bishop Benade to the Statement and Resolution No. 56, Journal of last year, and that Statement and Resolution are made a part of this presentation of the subject.
MINUTE 56, JOURNAL 64TH MEETING GENERAL CHURCH OF PENNSYLVANIA.
The Rev. John Whitehead offered the following 'Statement and Resolution':
"'Statement: The Constitution of the General convention gives the Association the right to enjoin a minister from the exercise of his functions within its own limits. Acting under this law, the General Church of Pennsylvania enjoined the Rev. L. H. Tafel.
"'The General Convention, at its last meeting, held in Washington, passed a resolution which implied censure of the General Church of Pennsylvania for this act, and this, in the face of a report of the General Council declaring that a thorough investigation of the case in all its details of fact and principle was hardly practicable, and not likely to lead to the best results.
"'Thus the Convention acted without any attempt at investigation, - and without any knowledge of the facts of the case, except from the biased statements of the enjoined minister and his adherents.
"'The Convention and the General Council in the various proceedings" bearing on this matter acted contrary to the plain letter of the Constitution and to the act of Incorporation, which required that the General Council shall be governed by the Constitution.
"'The Divine Law of the Church teaches that to act according to the law is to act from good, and to act contrary to the law is to act from evil, as may appear from n. 4444 of the Arcana Coelestia.
"'The General Church of Pennsylvania in its proceedings, has acted in conformity with the plain provisions of the Constitution of the Convention and of the Divine Law of the Church given in the Heavenly Doctrines; but the Convention has acted contrary to Its own laws and to common practice.
"'In view of these facts, be it
"'Resolved, That the acts of the General Convention, enumerated above, merit and receive our condemnation; and that we deplore the lack of charity, of common justice, and of equity manifested by the majority in Convention.'"
"It was pointed out by one speaker that the logical sequence of the Resolution would be another, severing connection with the Convention, and any stranger hearing it for the first time would expect such a resolution to follow. Finally it, was agreed that the proceedings last year were in the nature of preparation for separation, which latter, however, was not to be effected till one more opportunity had been given the Convention to take the proper steps to right its wrongful action and attitude toward the General Church and the principles advocated and represented by it. In answer to questions on the point, Bishop Benade showed that the origin a idea of Convention was of a National Church performing the uses of a larger body and of which the smaller bodies would be members. On this basis a compromise Constitution was adopted, but the Convention has not carried out the idea. Their breaking of the compact affords the best ground for severance of the relation to Convention. Such violation of the compact is in several forms and instances. The Trine in the Ministry was held to by us, but repudiated by others, and as a compromise nothing was said about it in the Constitution, thus leaving it a matter with which Convention had no right to interfere. It was a breaking of the compact for Convention to interfere in the matter of the consecration of Mr. Pendleton because the whole matter was ignored by its Constitution. Again, though the Constitution requires us to make a report, the Convention refused to receive the one we presented. Reports are properly statements of the opinions and doings of the reporting body and to throw ours out was a breach of good faith. So in the case of the injunction there was another breach of the compact and of good faith. By this action they have separated themselves from us and there is no sense in keeping up appearance of union.
"The point that the separation already exists, and by the act of the Convention itself, was regarded as of vital importance.
"It was also suggested that the state of prejudice in the Convention against anything emanating from the General Church is such that even if there were common ground with some in that body it is beyond ordinary sagacity to so present principles we believe in as to have them and ourselves understood and that therefore it is practically impossible to get a hearing.
"We condemned their action last year, have given them opportunity to repent, and they have not availed themselves of it but actually aggravated the offense.
"For thirteen years efforts to co-operate have been tried but without success. We presented the photo-lithographing use as a common one and they do nothing about it.
"There is denial of the Writings as the Divine Human, and this is at the bottom of all the disorder in the Convention. This is the serious ground of difference, and shows that we can no more make one Church with the most of Convention than could the believers in the truths of the Old Testament, who denied the LORD, be accepted as of one Church with the Christians who accepted Him as God alone.
"Hoping that this statement may be a means to our better understanding of our duty in the matter,
"For the Council,
"L. G. JORDAN, Secretary.
"November 7th, 189O=121."
DISCUSSING THE LETTER.
The Bishop:-"We do not need to put it in the form of a specific resolution. The reasons have been stated for a movement for severance. That is the question before us."
Rev. W. H. Adam asked whether the action of the last annual meeting is to be considered in connection with the present question.
The Bishop:-"That action is connected with it."
Mr. Pitcairn suggested that this consideration is really a continuation of that of the last meeting.
Rev. N. D. Pendleton asked whether it would be in order for those members of the Council of the Clergy who had not been present at the last meeting of the Council to now express their views on the general subject.
The Bishop stated that it would be in order.
Mr. Pendleton then declared his full agreement with the statement from the Council of the Clergy which had been read.
Mr. Adam also indorsed the statement.
Rev. Ellis I. Kirk concurred in the conclusions of the Council.
Rev. John Whitehead could not yet say that he had come to that conclusion. He could not say that he was fully ready to enter on the discussion. He thought it would be well to discuss the question further in the Council of the Clergy. He condemned the action of the Convention, but had not yet seen reason to change his view of last year as to the attitude to assume. He thought another step should be taken. The great burden of complaint in the Convention was that we did not come to them in the right way. We ought now to go over the whole ground and state the matter in such form that Convention would be compelled to give a categorical answer to us, so as to make it plain, that they take the initiative.
The Secretary called attention to the fact that it was not only the form but the substance of our complaint that was objected to.
Mr. Whitehead said that the Chairman's ruling at Convention was not a formal objection, but as a side remark.
The Secretary then read from the report of the proceedings, showing that the ruling was deliberate and actually that of the Convention inasmuch as no one opposed it.
"Chairman:-'Do not arraign the Convention.'
* * * * *
"Chairman:-'It is out of order. You are entirely out of order. You are going on to arraign the Convention.'
"Mr. Jordan:-'I will not appeal from the decision of the Chair. It is not the form, it is the substance that the Chair Objects to. . .'
"Chairman:-'We object to both substance and form."
The Bishop:-"Are we prepared to submit to similar treatment?"
CONVENTION'S DENIAL OF THE DIVINE HUMAN.
Mr. Burnham said that particulars call attention to special states, and serve to confuse if too much dwelt upon. Certain things stated have called our attention to a state of the Convention. They are all summed up in the closing part of the statement which has been read. (The part relating to the denial of the Divine Human of the LORD by Convention was again read.) "If that statement is true, and I think no one here is prepared to deny it, we can decide the question at once. If that is the state of the Convention no memorial, no report we could make would be accepted. If the charge is true there is sufficient reason why we should leave the Convention. If one is a member of the General Convention and of the General Church and of the Immanuel Church, would he not have to give his allegiance first to the larger body? But he cannot do this because he cannot recognize the body which should be the head. To attempt to maintain such a divided allegiance injures the Convention, and it injures us, and it injures every component part of the Convention. From that general state of denial of the LORD'S Divine Human all the particulars of the actions complained of, must flow."
The Bishop:-"We owe allegiance to the LORD."
Rev. E. J. E. Schreck:-"The Doctrine of charity determines the question. We owe allegiance not to the body but to the charity in the body. If the good of charity is not in the Convention we do not owe allegiance to it."
Rev. A. Czerny:-"Last year when the question was before us some expressed the opinion that we should separate. I was not then in favor of doing so, on the ground that the angels do not leave any one but men go away from the angels. The occurrences of the last year show that the Convention has separated from us. They do not believe the Writings as we do; they believe them to be the writings of Swedenborg. I agree fully with the Council of the Clergy."
The Bishop:-"We have put in our statement the fact that the Convention has separated from us."
Mr. Czerny:-"Only those constitute the Church who receive the Writings as a Revelation."
CONVENTION HAS LEFT THE NEW CHURCH.
Rev. N. D. Pendleton:-"It is clearer than ever that it is a question of the LORD'S New Church on earth and of belief in His Writings. This body known as the General Convention does not stand as a church before the LORD. They do not recognize the Writings as the glorified form of the LORD. They have not merely separated from us or from any body, but have put themselves out of the Church. It may be a question how many of them deny the LORD in the Writings. There may be many of them who do not deny, but I believe that such denial has been adopted as a principle in the Convention. I am convinced that we are not here to discuss how the President ruled, but the relation of the Convention to the LORD'S Church."
Mr. Acton:-"What is it that can alone hold Newchurchmen together but doctrine? Convention is held together by compromise. That cannot constitute a body as a man. If we were part of the Convention as a man they would perform certain uses to us which they do not do, and we should perform uses to them which we cannot. The bond that holds us together is a merely external bond. It is better to have a straightforward understanding and not to attempt compromises."
The Bishop:-"We do not wish to continue a compromise with such a shaky body-a body that has the rickets."
Mr. Schreck:-"Is it a continuance of the compromise after they have so frequently broken it?"
The Bishop:-"Mr. Pendleton is right. They have separated from the Church."
Bishop Pendleton:-"Yes they have separated from the Church."
IS CONVENTION IN THIS STATE?
Mr. Albert H. Childs:-"I must confess that I have been taken by surprise. I knew of the discussion of this question last year. I read the report of the meeting. After Mr. Whitehead came home the matter was brought up in our men's meeting at home. The pastor gave his views of the disorder in Convention, and thought that we ought to bring them into order. I regarded it as settled for the present, that it was right that we should continue the relation and try to be harmonious. Then we received the minutes of the Council of the Clergy. I did not know what to say. Is this to be rushed through? When I found that the clergy had gone in this direction I thought that even if they had found reason for it it had come to them quite suddenly. I do not defend the Convention. Still, it does not seem to me that the wrong can be all on one side. We should make an effort to continue in charity. I do not believe that because they do not agree with the General Church it is a reason for separation. The Church is in its infancy. Certain principles which are essential I believe are received by all. I cannot believe that the statement before us [that they deny the LORD] is true."
The Bishop:-"We mean the LORD in His Second Coming."
Mr. Albert H. Childs (continuing):-"Not that it is such a denial as to justify our cutting loose and separating from them. There should be a general body and one under which we can act freely. I think an intelligent stranger would not expect Mr. Whitehead's resolution to be followed by one of severance, but one to harmonize. I think if the General Church should rush this through it would separate from many who could not go along. I would urge that the Church do not act in a hasty manner, but try to do something to make us in harmony with our brothers in the Church. I do not mean that the Convention is the best form, but we ought to have something that will bring us into harmony. We are not working for a minute, but for eternity. We should not act from resentment or offended dignity. I believe there are more things which might be said to bring us together. I am afraid the desire to separate has grown up, and that this makes even the Doctrines to favor it. I hope that a memorial, not in arrangement, but in a proper form, may be tried. There is a great deal in the method followed."
Mr. R. M. Glenn:-"Mr. Childs looks at the question from the wrong side. He speaks of our secession, forgetting that the separation is accomplished. The position of Mr. Pendleton and the other ministers is that it exists. Now, the Convention requires us to report. Our report was not accepted. In a certain sense we have been kicked out. I doubt if a memorial would be received as well as the report. It is proper to report. It is our duty to report, no matter what the evils are that are among us. The Convention is to receive the report and deal with the evils. The throwing out of our report is the throwing out of the body. I do not see how it is possible to go to Convention with a memorial or in any other way till the Convention takes action to show that it does not stand by the wrongs it has committed. The Convention has made the separation."
Mr. Albert H. Childs:-"I don't believe the Convention intended that. But that will be as good an excuse as any. If we want to heal the breach we should try to do it. I don't suppose they are any further away than for forty years past, it is going away for their action at one time. The case is not as serious as some believe. Some take up the idea and they are followed by others. Now, if throwing out the report does throw out the body I did not hear it until lately. It is making it too serious to treat it in that way. If the Convention intended that, it could have done it in a way not to be misunderstood."
3
Mr. Jacob Schoenberger:-"I think that if it can be clearly stated that the Convention does not believe in the Second Coming of the LORD that is sufficient to separate us. I would be sorry to look up to a Convention which denies that. If the statement can be proven we should separate, and the sooner the better. As long as we remain in it we are part of a disorderly body. The Convention should not be in a position to be accused of being a disorderly body, and this body the head of the New Church. It is a question of how much use there is between us. It seems that the Convention is closed against the General Church, and there is no benefit from us to them or from them to us. The General Convention is prejudiced against the General Church of Pennsylvania. While that state exists it is of no use to be a member any longer. We can perform the true use of a Church better not to be guided by any outside body but ourselves. I believe that the New Church has just started now in the General Church of Pennsylvania. Convention was only a forerunner of the Church."
IS THE PROPOSED ACTION HASTY?
Mr. G. A. Macbeth.-"There seems to be an idea in Mr. Childs's mind as of a somewhat hasty action. That is not justified by the facts. I think if a mistake has been made at all it was in agreeing to a compromise Constitution. The present state of affairs is orderly progression. If we say two times two are four and they say two times two are three and a half, we have no option. Now, I would call attention to the original letter on this subject (referring to his letter published in Journal 64th annual meeting). We talked that over very thoughtfully. Many were not up to that point. In conversation since, nearly everybody came to the conclusion that the Convention had separated from us. I am the only layman who was at Detroit and Boston and Washington. The action at Detroit plumped it to me at once, 'What is the use of fooling with this Convention.' You have now come to what was my position then. It has been conciliation for forty years. Conciliation, conciliation, conciliation. We ought to see now if we could get there. We have gone on deliberating and the General Convention is satisfied. There has been no single act without due and careful consideration. The historicals will bear us out. Pennsylvania has been as conciliating as possible in every matter. We cannot alter the truth, and if we adopt a resolution to do so we cannot alter it. We have stood a long time in coming to this conclusion."
Mr. W. C. Childs:-"Last year I was opposed to severing connection with the Convention. I had much the same view at that time as has been expressed by my brother. But General Church of Pennsylvania would do better work if separated from the Convention. I also believe that the New Church has, pre-eminently, begun as an organized body in the General Church of Pennsylvania.
"It may be difficult to prove to a person not open to conviction that the Convention denies the Divine Human in the Writings. It is not clear to my brother that the time has come to do what is proposed, but I would suggest that he, and no doubt many others in the General Church, might be convinced, and also that many in the Convention are capable of being led to see the truth and away from those who are now leading them. Now if there is a way to convince them I should like to know it. Possibly it might be well to remain awhile longer in the Convention to force its leaders to show where they stand."
The Bishop:-"This involves what shall -help the Convention on the doctrine of charity. Supposing a member of the Old Church had received the Doctrines of the New Church, would he help the Old Church by going in or staying out? Is it not of charity to separate where you cannot work together? Some of us have been, for forty years, in a chronic state of hopelessness. We have failed because we met with obstacles. The Academy's existence is owing to that very thing. It was a modus vivendi. We established a body to act in freedom according to reason, we tried to find a way to continue profitably with them. Instead of succeeding we are further apart. We have no better Convention than forty years ago. We must give up the idea of the Convention as a Church."
Mr. Albert Childs:-"It is very different from what I have thought if that is so. I have not so understood. You compare them with the Old Church, but there are the varieties of the New Church spoken of in the Writings."
The Bishop:-" We do not admit the variety."
Mr. Childs (continuing):-"I understood it so. If you can prove the denial of the Writings that would have been sufficient. But if I am not mistaken, there is at the head of the Messenger, or was the last time I noticed it (I confess-I have not read it much, and it may have been changed) a statement of belief in the Second Coming of the LORD. As to this movement being sudden it is so to me. Last year we had the idea of continuing indefinitely. Last Saturday I received the first notice of any change in that determination. It seems to me too hasty. It appears to me to be wrong. There are some of us who cannot do this yet. It will leave us stranded highs and dry. Why should you go away and leave us? Our Church will be lost, Convention will be lost. We can't go with any people. What will we do."
THE REPRESENTATION OF MOSES.
Mr. Whitehead:-"The Divine Human is the essential of the subject. All the rest is merely nothing. That is the point we ought to come to. The miserable state of the Convention has appeared to me more and more in the last few years. No doubt the Bishop sees more, and is thoroughly convinced of its rottenness. But the matter should be examined from the Word. I have been so considering it, especially from the case of the Sons of Israel. Moses represents the Divine Truth revealed for the leading out of Egypt. There was a mixed multitude. There were rebellions and rejections. These were subdued one after the other. I believe the position of the General Church is just that of Moses. The teaching of the Bishop has been that it is this which is to bring the simple out from the Old Church as well. In the application to the Church it seems as if it would involve separation even from the simple good. Then there are some other phases which seem to show that we ought to stand there as a centre. But we are not yet in that condition, we are only working toward it. The people were making the golden calf while Moses went up to receive the Ten Commandments. This represents their being in externals. Those who oppose the authority of the Writings are in the externals, but in that only for the time. The history seems to indicate that they will be almost separated. Moses took the tent out of the camp and set it in a new place. I have a strong feeling that the General Church will come to that. The state of the Convention seems to be almost full. They say it is a matter of interpretation, and pass on without hearing, because it is a matter of interpretation. This is, at present, a denial of the Writings. Now, Moses reduced the different states to order. The rebels, like Nadab and Abihu, were killed, and so the leaders of the Convention must go down if they oppose the LORD in the Writings. But I have a strong conviction from the teachings of the Bishop that there I should be a general body of the Church."
(Voices:-"Yes, the Church.")
"There is no question of that, I do not believe that the Convention is organized according to order. In the history of the Apocalypse there is a description of the disorderly states. In the Apocalypse Revealed it is applied, more to the Old Church than to the New, but in the Apocalypse Explained in reference to any Church. It is shown that the war between Michael and the Dragon was in heaven-that is, when it is in the New Church. The Dragon was cast down by conflict. If the Church comes into conflict, false states will be cast out, as sometimes in the history, we may be separate, but unity will come afterward. There should be one body. I have not given such attention to the-study of the varieties of the Church as to know that the varieties will be distinct Churches. I have supposed that all Newchurchmen band together to carry on general uses. The Ancient I Church was divided into nations. Perhaps it will not be so in the New Church. It seems to me that the way we are going on there will be more disorder. They are not varieties now, but diversities. Varieties can be harmonized. Diversities cannot. There are great diversities in the New Church now. It brings what is heterogeneous together on the same plane. I believe the heads of the Church ought to get together. I am not prepared to say as yet that we ought to take the final step of separation."
THE TIME FOR SEPARATION HAS COME.
Mr. John Pitcairn:-" Ever since the present Constitution of the General Convention was adopted (and even while it was being considered) I have been convinced that separation would come sooner or later. I happened to be a member of the Committee that was appointed to frame the compromise Constitution under which we are working. In that Committee, which was a representative one, the negative attitude of the leaders of the Convention toward the Doctrines was evident. The Constitution was adopted and it has satisfied nobody, The reasons given by Mr. Whitehead, in his reference to Moses, seem to show the necessity for separation. Where is Moses in the New Church? Does the Convention acknowledge Moses? The Constitution of the General Convention, as has been said, is a compromise instrument.
4
The little of the law drawn from the Writings which we find in it is there owing to the efforts of the members of this body. Parliamentary law and the forms of a vastated Church played too large a part in the framing of it. When the children of Israel rebelled against Moses, who represented the law, did he compromise? Let the daily lessons we have been reading according to the Calendar, answer. Happily Moses, representing the Divine Law as given in the Writings for the New Church, is acknowledged in the General Church of Pennsylvania. We have endeavored to frame our Instrument of Organization solely from those Writings, which we believe to be the LORD in His Second Advent.
"The time for separation has come now. I had a doubt whether it would not be better to wait another year; but the more I think of it the more I come to the conclusion that it would be useless. When we separate we shall be a body that is founded on the LORD'S Revelation in His Second Coming. There will be in the world a rallying point for all in the New Church who acknowledge the LORD in His Second Coming. There will be a focus for influx and for true development, and the progress will be such as never before. In the General Church we have done away with geographical limitations, believing that similarity of faith should conjoin. The General Convention fought that principle. Has the time come to put up the banner of the New Church and to establish the New Church on the fundamental Doctrine of the Divine Human, of the LORD in His Second Advent? Only by separation can we make progress. If people cannot agree, let them separate. This principle goes into all the uses of life. When men are associated and they offer in regard to fundamental principles of action, is it not charity for them to separate? The application is plain. I believe that the time has now come for separation."
Mr. Albert H. Childs:-"What Mr. Pitcairn says is true to him, no doubt. But he says that not long ago he was not of that mind. There are many others who are not convinced, who have not had the opportunities he has had. No one interferes with our freedom. We are acting according to true order. There is no need for haste and rushing this through this meeting."
THE REPRESENTATION OF AARON.
The Bishop:-"The discussion has gone so far that it becomes necessary for me to say a few words. Mr. Whitehead cited the; Word of the LORD. He introduced the representation of the LORD by Moses, but not that by Aaron. Aaron was the High Priest. He should be regarded as well as Moses. As your, Bishop, I say to you that I am not free. I ask you to set me free. (Turning to the Rev. N. D. Pendleton:) as one of the younger ministers I speak to you. Supposing you were called on to baptize an infant and you proceeded to do so, and your Church Council took you to task for doing it. What would you say?"
Mr. Pendleton:-"Attend to your own business."
The Bishop:-"And that is what I should say to the Convention in respect to ordination. I claim the freedom to ordain any man. I deny that Convention has any authority over a General Pastor or Bishop, and as long as I continue in the office I cannot submit to their control. Aaron represents the LORD in the priestly function. We have talked of the denial of the LORD in His Second Coming. They want to subject the Priesthood to a vote of the majority of Convention. They might as well say that they have the right to interfere in baptism and in training a child. They might even inflict such names as did the Puritans of 'Praise-God-Barebones.' Now I cannot continue in the office of Bishop and submit to such interference. I do not wish to resign the office because there are difficulties in the case, and because I should desire my successor to be free."
Mr. Burnham:-"There is one phase of the subject which has not been brought up. Mr. Whitehead spoke of the nations in the Ancient Church. I believe the division in the Most Ancient Church was according to families. As I understand it, that relation is to be restored in the New Church, but it is to be on the basis of spiritual affection. We should be brought together by spiritual affection. We are not to be governed by the limitations of geography. If we are bound to the Convention, why not to all Newchurchmen in the world? If we recognize the LORD and we are all bound together by spiritual affiliations there will be varieties. The Convention is brought together on geographical grounds altogether. If they believe the Writings but interpret them in their way and look at it differently from us, if so (it might be so), then there might be diversity of churches. Spiritual, not natural diversity. There should be an universal Church. All who see truth in the same way throughout the world should be together. It may have the seat of government in this country or in any other. We may belong to that Church because there is a spiritual brotherhood. Grant that the others of the Convention are honest in their beliefs, it takes on a different form from ours. They are thus not free, nor are we free as long as we are together. When geographical limits are not the bond of the Church, we are left free. Our love should be for the LORD'S New Church, and if it brings greater freedom to separate, we should recognize it and separate."
Bishop Pendleton:-"The first principle of charity is the love of the freedom of the neighbor. That being so, does Mr. Childs think our presence in the Convention contributes to the freedom of the Convention?"
Mr. Albert B. Childs:-"That is difficult to answer. My opinion of how they would feel does not enter. They seem to be free enough. I am not disposed to set up geographical or any other bounds. We have met with some little rebuff. But I have not seen enough to lead me to separate. My mind cannot be changed at once. Especially believing as I have, that we were all right then and more still after last year."
Mr. Glenn:-"'Does the Convention mean it?' asks Mr. Childs. We must suppose they know what they do, and are carrying out their principles honestly. If Mr. Childs will consider that carefully he will see that the time has come to go out now. Only he thinks they may not mean it. The time will never come if we wait to find out whether they do."
Rev. C. T. Odhner:-"I wish to speak of the state of the Priesthood in the Convention. That is most internal and essential. If it is from the LORD it is of the Church. If it is not from the LORD it is from hell. Up to a few years ago they recognized the Priesthood as from the LORD. Now they have established a third degree of the Priesthood not from the LORD and thence from hell. Can we live together with them in that case with two Priesthoods?"
BISHOP BENADE'S APPEAL FOR FREEDOM.
Bishop Pendleton called attention to what the Bishop had said. "Are we prepared to set him free or to separate from him? There will be confusion if we are separated from our head. Now, what is the bond which holds bodies together? This bond is charity. Does it exist? Is there a bond of chant that holds us, the General Church and the Convention, together? If so, we should remain together. It seems to me that there is not any bond but one of faith alone. We profess like views, but there is no bond of charity in application, in the carrying out. The first thing of charity is to lend to the Doctrines of the Church. Is there a bond of that? Not a single one of application. That seems to me fundamental. Creeds do not hold men together. Charity is what holds. Lately I have been thinking of the value of an initiative. For a long time it seemed that we ought to be separate. I have been of the idea, however, that the Convention ought to take the initiative. But it is a valuable principle of war, of all combat, to cease to be passive and become aggressive. The first states enter into all that follow. Separation should not come in a state of doubt, but with affirmation that we ought not to continue together. The positive affirmation of the Divine Truth as the LORD expresses it in the Revelation, which is His Second Coming."
Mr. Whitehead:-"What is the bond of union? I have come to conclude that we have no true bend. There should be one of uses. Thinking over the matter, I see that we have no common bond of use. If they would do the use of the photo-lithographing, we might unite with them in it, but they have not entered into it. We cannot enter with them into the use of the education of ministers. Boards practically independent of the Convention have control of these uses in which we could engage. We have no representation on the Board of Missions. They keep us out of those Boards. It has seemed to me that the separation would come unless a change was effected in these respects. I do believe in taking the initiative. I don't believe in allowing the Convention to buffet us. The Convention has shut us off from the uses we might perform together. So, too, the Convention interferes with the office of the Bishop. If he needs to exercise his functions we cannot ask the Convention for authority."
The Bishop:-"Has the Convention given us the right that it has to other bodies?"
Mr. Whitehead:-"No. They have cut us off. We ought to make a statement of this and lay it before them. They acted as a superior to an inferior, yet they have not organized the Convention in that way. We are as equals. The fact that seven parts differ from one part does not give the seven the right to give the other a whipping. We have in the Convention no body to investigate in case one body does what is disorderly. We ought to state these things and ask what they intend to do."
5
THE FIRST DUTY IS TO THE LORD.
Mr. Schreck:-"Our duty is not to any man or set of men, but the LORD only. In discussing such serious questions we should keep our eyes singly upon the LORD. The angels do not, constitute the heavens. The Divine of the LORD makes the heavens, and the Church is the Divine as received on earth. Now, the action proposed is not hasty. I fear that Brother Childs has not considered all that has been presented. The general trend of the last meeting was toward separation, and to be ready for it this year."
Mr. Albert H. Childs explained again about the discussion of the subject in the men's meeting at Pittsburgh.
Mr. Schreck (continuing):-"The idea was not unforeseen. The consideration that the Church is wholly from the LORD will clear up the question of the varieties, and determine whether in time they may be brought into harmony. The separation exits, and it is only a question of recognizing it. If the Church exists in any body it is our duty to recognize what the LORD demands of us there. The New Church descends as a bride out of Heaven, from God. It is our duty to remove everything that interferes with the reception of it, and to prepare our minds that it may rest on the foundations made for it. Why was the earth created but that the Church may rest on it? It is the duty of us, who see that the LORD has come with power and great glory, to co-operate with Him in the establishment of the New Church on earth, that the principles of the New Jerusalem may be carried out, onto the most ultimate acts of the body. It has been said to be our duty to stay and show our brethren these principles. For years this has been done. We have united in this anomalous association with no good result. When the LORD comes the judgment is effected. It has been effected through the preaching and teaching of the Divine Truth. The principle that geographical bounds do not inclose us has been established, and this extends further than our country. We must associate according to spiritual affinity. There are indications not only of the judgment here but in other nations as far as the imperfect conditions will warrant it. A Church is being formed throughout the Christian world. There has been a two-fold rejection on the part of the Convention, of Moses and of Aaron, of the Divine Truth and the Divine Good. Men are led by truth to good. There is rejection of both. Representations have not ceased. Representation was not abolished. Representatives still continue in force. We have a representative of the LORD in the Holy Office of the Priesthood for saving souls. Our Bishop is a representative, and I refer to him because he' is in the third degree. I do not speak of him as a man. If he calls upon us to set him free he calls not as a man but as the representative of the LORD, and what else can we do but heed that call. There is in that a most grave consideration. It must not be determined by external considerations. Our charity is due first to the LORD and to the means He employs. It is our charity to do what is to be done. Varieties of view are to be considered, but they will not be of the Church unless they recognize the Church. There is a general acknowledgment of the LORD in His First Coming. But we have that and more in the newly opened Word in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. Mr. Childs has questioned our statement that the Convention rejects the LORD in His Second Coming. The Vice-President of the Convention has asserted that 'The Doctrines are not the LORD, they are the means of coming to the LORD, they are the way to the LORD.' And the President said in an annual address: 'These truths are the means of the Lord making His Second Advent,' entirely ignoring the fact that Swedenborg has written on two of his books: 'This Book is the Second Coming of the LORD.' These, charges against the two highest officials of Convention were published a year ago in our proceedings. Not a word of denial has been uttered by the Convention that this is not their belief in view of this we see that their professions of a belief in the Writings as Divine do not amount to anything.
"We are admonished to exercise charity to the Convention, but nothing is said of the charity which we owe to the LORD'S representative among us, to the Bishop, the Chief Priest of this Church
"The act of Convention in denying the Bishop the freedom of his office is a further cutting off of the connection. It is time to recognize that the Convention has already separated itself from the Doctrines of the Church and from us."
Rev. N. D. Pendleton:-"The matter has come to me forcibly from what our brother Schreck and the Bishop have said about freedom. I was trained by the Bishop, and he has made a call upon me to do what I can to free his hands. That arousing might come and might be said to come from the state of affection for the man. But there has been that about what the Bishop has done which has characterized his other acts that I feel in no way forced by his personal authority. I do not in the least give up my personal freedom in the matter, but in accordance with that freedom I do feel called upon to recall what the Bishop has said, and to do all I can to set him in his office free. Mr. Childs speaks of 'little rebuffs.' That may be his different way of looking at them. They have not been small to me. The Convention believes that the Writings are of man. The General Church of Pennsylvania believes that they are of Divine authority. Now there will always be a pretext for combat. There will be the real cause for a war and an ultimate pretext. I maintain that the pretext came when we presented our report and had it rejected. That embodiment of the principles of the Church was the General Church of Pennsylvania present. When they put it out, they put out the General Church. We are to embody our principles in our report, and they cast a stigma upon them. To say that separation will be is to say that it is and will be announced."
The Secretary:-"It seems to me that we are not at liberty to discuss the other elements in the case until we have disposed of the question as to what we will do concerning our Bishop. He has declared that he is not free."
The Bishop:-"The office is not free."
The Secretary:-"Then the first thing for us to do is to take note of that bondage and remove it. There is no need to discuss any other matter unless we are prepared to go on without our head."
Mr. W. C. Childs:-"Does the Bishop mean to say that he will resign before the next session of the Convention? There is a question as to whether we owe anything to those who are misled. Would it not be a great gain not to do what they want us to, but compel them to show their real animus? Beside, does not charity require that we remain for the sake of the salvation of souls by bringing out the real state of the Convention? Perhaps the Bishop would delay his resignation."
The Bishop:-"That matter has been considered in the Bishop's address."
Mr. Schreck:-"The principal question is that raised by Mr. Burnham about the denial of the Divine Human. If they do not see that the Writings are the Divine Human, they will not see the point about the freedom of the priesthood or any other. If they blind themselves to that, they will reject all."
Mr. W. C. Childs:-"Will they see what we mean? I do not believe they will, and we shall not reach those whom we might lead."
Bishop Pendleton:-"The end which Mr. Childs desires, I am solemnly convinced, will be reached much better if we are independent. The stronger, freer, more rational we are, the better we can do uses. In every thing you propose, this is the way to do it."
Mr. Macbeth:-"A careful review of the whole discussion will resolve itself to this: 'What are the Writings?'"
THE MESSENGER AND THE WRITINGS.
Mr. Albert Childs:-"These are serious assertions. I don't know whom you mean. It is amazing to hear such assertions. Why, the very last Messenger had an article which I read hastily, but, as I recall it, it combated the idea of holding to Swedenborg as a man."
Mr. Schreck:-"What do they mean by that?"
Mr. Childs:-"The same as I do, I suppose."
Mr. Schreck:-"They do not, as their literature will show. The unity of the Church does not depend on external organization. If that were so, we ought not to have different churches in different countries. Unity is from an internal principle."
The Bishop:-"The LORD in His Divine Providence is preparing the way for the establishment of a general body, which shall be a General New Church. In England, France, and other places, that is coming to pass and rapidly. We shall be able to unite with a body that is in order. This seems to be impossible at the present time. We have had the conviction that we ought to be in a larger body. We have labored for that on the basis of the acknowledgment of the LORD in His Second Coming. That has been our position year after year. It was rejected, and we have been shut out. On the ground of charity, I think, our action in separating from the Convention will be an orderly one. It will lead to the organization of a body in true order. It will gather out all who acknowledge the LORD in His Second Coming. You may depend upon it that the denial of the priesthood will have its ultimate in the disintegration of the existing bodies. They claim that it is men's office. That they make it. I claim that that is a profanation of the LORD'S office and of the LORD'S Divine Truth. The Convention claims, and, the Conference in England claims, that they are the force making, and I believe that the LORD alone is the sole authority, and not men or any body of men."
6
Rev. Ellis I. Kirk:-"As to the article in the last Messenger, the same writer says, a little further on, that 'we do not for a moment compare the Writings with the Word.' Now, with the office of the priesthood assailed and our report rejected, is it optional with us to follow on and continue in connection with the Convention? The only step is that we may free ourselves. The Bishop holds up the standard, 'JEHOVAH NISSI.' It only remains for us to rally round that standard."
Mr. W. C. Childs:-"There is a confirmation of the relation of the clergy to this matter. Many sermons have been published by Convention ministers, but in none have I seen a simple answer to the question, 'What constitutes the Second Coming of the LORD?' it is said to be evidenced in sewing-machines, the steam-engine, and the telegraph and such things; but, outside of the General Church of Pennsylvania, I never heard it said that it was in those Books. Even take the instance of Dr. Tafel, once the standard-bearer of the authority of the Writings. Dr. Tafel says there may be trifling errors in Swedenborg, while he professes that those books constitute the Second Coming of the LORD. This shows that our acknowledgment is not his. Separation is simply a question of time. For my own part, I have been for delay only for the sake of ourselves and others in the Convention, The question now is: Has the time come?"
Mr. Schreck:-"What do you want them to do?"
Mr. Childs:-"Make a proposition to them to apologize."
Mr. Schreck:-"To withdraw is the best way to lead them to apologize, if they can be brought to that at all."
Mr. Glenn:-"If the priesthood is bound the whole Church is bound. Can we then help the simple good?"
Mr. Pitcairn:-"Since this question has become prominent it has occurred to me that the LORD has been protecting the simple good in the Old Church by preventing them from coming out too soon. If they had come into the so-called New Church their minds would have been obscured. I should not be surprised, if when the Church is established according to the principles we hold, there were a great many who would then come in. The Church will maize real progress."
Mr. Whitehead:-"I have thought almost the same in regard to the simple good of the Old Church. But there is another reason given in the Writings. They could not come out until the combat with the Old Church is passed. I do not look for increase until after the New Church has been fully established, then the simple good can be drawn into it. In Nos. 473 or 573 of the Apocalypse Explained, where the Dragon is treated of, this seems to be indicated that there must first come a clearing in the New Church. (Several: 'Just what we want.') Only those represented by John can withstand the assault. These see that the LORD has made a revelation. These will produce; those who will constitute Michael. I think the disorder will have to be driven out."
Mr. Pitcairn:-"It is a remarkable fact that up to the present time there has been no General New Church. There has been only a meeting."
Mr. Schreck:-"It was proposed that they should call themselves the New Church, but they rejected it."
Mr. Pitcairn-"If the connection were dissolved we could be free to establish such a Church."
Mr. Price:-"In the True Christian Religion we are taught that dinners and suppers denote conjunction of charity and serve to effect it-that is, with those who are in mutual love from similar faith. Here is one strong point in the matter of our relation to the Convention: Here the most Holy of all Suppers has been so defiled that we cannot be present. They charge us with want of charity and yet take such action that we cannot he together with them."
The Bishop:-"With want of charity for our refusing to partake with them in an act of profanation."
Mr. Price:-"Mr. Albert Childs is at a loss in matters of history. Mr. W. C. Childs has suggested that the freedom of the clergy in the Convention has been taken away. What has been done all along but that very thing which he describes? For my own part, I have heard nothing else. The records of the Convention show it. Open the books and you see it in every place. The Magazine, for instance. It is really a good reason for going that they wish us to. The Magazine for a year and a half easily interpreted shows that nothing would be better for them."
The hour being late, it was decided to discontinue the discussion, that the Councils make no recommendation in the matter, but that the subject be allowed to come up for discussion in the General Meeting from the Bishop's address.
THE GENERAL MEETING.
THE sixty-fifth annual meeting of the General Church was held in Pittsburgh on November 13th to 16th, both included. The attendance was larger than ever before in the history of the re-organized Church, and the representation of particular Churches fuller. About fifty members and visitors from a distance were in attendance. Bishop Benade, quite contrary to all expectation, was able to be present and to preside at all the business meetings and to attend the socials and other gatherings, except those of Sunday. His presence and unlooked-for strength contributed greatly to the fullness of interest and value of the meetings.
THE FIRST DAY.
Thursday, November 13th.
THE BISHOP opened the meeting with Divine Worship.
Certain routine business was transacted, and it was then agreed that the Bishop's address should be postponed to the next morning. The presence of three representatives from Canada, the Rev. E. S. Hyatt and Messrs. A. K. Roy and Rudolph Roschmann, was noted, and they were warmly welcomed and invited to participate in the deliberations of the Church.
The report of the Council of the Clergy was read. The matters of importance therein treated of are either already well known to the Church, or more fully considered in the discussion to be hereafter reported. This was followed by the reports of Ministers and particular Churches. The principal matters herein mentioned and not hitherto published were the removal of the Rev. W. H. Acton to Chicago to assist in the work of Immanuel Church and the School of the Academy there; the resignation of the Rev. John Whitehead as Headmaster of the Academy School in Pittsburgh, to give more attention to the Pittsburgh Society and other work of the General Church, and the withdrawal of the Lancaster Society from the General Church.
In the course of debate upon the proper course to pursue, with respect to the Lancaster Society, the question of membership in the General Church came into great prominence. It appeared that there had been considerable misunderstanding us to the relation of particular Church organizations to the General Church and the formalities necessary to constitute an individual a member of the General Church. The Bishop ruled that no particular Church as such is necessarily a member of the General Church, but that the latter is composed of individual members. Also, that no particular Church can constitute an individual a member of the General Church, but that each individual must express his desire to become such member and be accepted as such. That the proper order for the formation of particular Churches within the General Church is to require that all who would so organize be first members of the New Church by baptism, and secondly, members of the General Church by acceptance thereon.
Much time was spent in discussing the situation, owing to the fear of some that as this order had not always been observed, something of past action might be invalidated. It was finally agreed to refer the matter to Councils, with a request that they report upon it at the next general meeting of the Church.
7
In reference to the Lancaster Society, the following preamble and resolutions were adopted:
"WHEREAS, A communication has been received from the Lancaster Society that said Society withdraws from the . . . "General Church," and by this act has, to all intents and purposes, severed its connection with the same.
"Resolved, That the communication from Lancaster be accepted as the expression of the individual members who subscribed it.
"Resolved, That the withdrawal of these persons from the membership in the General Church of Pennsylvania be accepted, and
"Resolved, That the General Church of Pennsylvania regrets that these members have withdrawn without assigning any reason."
The report of the Council of the Laity was read.
Also the following summary of the Treasurer's Report:
Balance in Treasury November 1st, 1889, . $122.50
Receipts from all sources, November 1st,
1889, to October 31st, 1890 1,908.49
Total, $2,030.99
Expenditures, November 1st, 1889, to October
31st, 1890 1,489.05
Balance on hand November 1st, 1890, $541.94
The Treasurer also stated that he had sent out a circular letter to every member of the General Church respecting contributions, but that although stamped envelopes for reply had been inclosed, together with a request for some sort of answer, only twenty-eight per cent. of the number written to had responded.
THE SECOND DAY.
Friday, November 14th.
THE meeting was opened by Bishop Pendleton, who conducted religious service.
Bishop Benade took the chair.
The Secretary called attention to the importance of order in the proceedings, and stated that the stenographer engaged to assist the Secretaries had instructions to report no remarks except of those speakers who had been duly recognized by the chair.
The Church proceeded to listen to the Bishop's address. At the request of the Bishop a small portion of this was read by the Rev. E. J. E. Schreck, but by far larger portion by the Bishop himself, who spoke for upwards of an hour, standing all the time and extemporizing considerably. The whole address, including the extemporaneous additions, which are inserted in brackets, is as follows:
THE BISHOP'S ADDRESS.
I.
"DURING the year that has passed since our last annual meeting, the relations between the General Church of Pennsylvania and the General Convention, that had suffered a severe strain in previous years, rapidly approached the point of rupture, and it will be for us to consider at this time whether it be wise to seek a reconstruction of those relations rather than to sever the union that has attached us to the Convention as a constituent member of that body. I have no hesitation, brethren, in stating it to be my conviction that the latter will be the wiser and better course, inasmuch as it will free us from the intolerable condition of being tied to a hostile body that seems to be unwilling to be bound by its own Constitution in cases affecting our action.
THE CONSTITUTION, A COMPROMISE.
The Constitution of the General Convention is a compromise, so understood at the time of its adoption in its present amended form. A compromise binds and is useful only so long as the parties to it act in good faith. It rests upon their mutual good faith, and bad faith on the one part or the other involves a violation of the compact between the two parties, and inevitably leads to a severance of their united relations.
In Article V, of the Constitution of the General Convention, on the Priesthood or Ministry, there is a general acknowledgment of subordination in the Priesthood and hence of different orders in the Ministry, an acknowledgment so general that the various parts of the Church are at liberty, and can feel themselves at liberty, to define the distinction of orders according to their several understandings of the Divine Laws. Not a word is said of degrees in the Ministry. A reference to a trine of discrete degrees in the Ministry was intentionally withheld by those members of the Committee that drafted this Article, who believed in such a trine and this for the reason that it was known that such a reference would be objectionable to others, and would prevent the intended compromise. It was known, also, at our division of the Church held firmly to a belief in a trine in the Ministry, and good faith required that those who were of an apposite belief should respect our belief and our trust in their maintaining their own belief whilst having a regard to our rational freedom.
But now, what do we see? Your Bishop, after performing an act of ordination into the third degree of the Ministry, according to his known convictions of order, is subjected to the insult of an investigation by an incompetent and inferior Committee, which reports to the Convention that in its opinion the act of ordaining Mr. Pendleton was not loyal to the spirit, at least, of the Constitution under which Mr. Benade holds the office of General Pastor, etc. (See Journal, Report No. 11, page 46.) In this way the Committee attempts to meet the wishes of their friend, Mr. Tafel, and by the introduction of a "spirit" that has been kept bottled up until this time, finds a way of overcoming their perplexity arising from the fact that the act of Mr. Pendleton's ordination into the third degree does not affect any actual provision of the Constitution. Had the Committee performed its duty intelligently, it would have learnt that the act was not performed by me as a General Pastor of the Convention, but as Chancellor of the Academy of the New Church; no General Pastor of the General Convention could have installed Mr. Pendleton in the office of Vice- Chancellor of the Academy, a body which is entirely independent of the Convention. The process of letting out an embottled spirit, in order to establish the charge of disloyalty to the Constitution, is peculiar, to say the least of it, and leads the way to the advice that this spirit be caught without delay and shut up again, lest he go about to do further mischief.
THREE INSTANCES OF BAD FAITH.
For the reasons given, I hold this charge of the Committee to be in bad faith and a violation of the compact between parties to the compromise of the Constitution. The Convention, by not repudiating the opinion of the Committee, has participated in the bad faith of their course, and has thereby separated itself from the General Church of Pennsylvania.
8
This state of things makes a continuance of the connection intolerable, especially now that the Convention has further illustrated its own disloyalty to the Constitution by adopting the recommendation of the Council of Ministers to sanction the vesting of the powers of General Pastor in the President-elect of the New York Association and in the Superintendent of the Illinois Association. (See Journal for 1890, minute No. 91, p. 19, also pp. 83, 47.)
The action of the Convention of 1889, at the meeting in Washington, in sustaining the ruling of the Chair on the point of order raised by your Bishop when the matter of the injunction of Mr. Tafel was under consideration, was a flagrant act of bad faith and a violation of the compact of the Constitution, inasmuch as it is well understood that the injunction clause of Section V of the Constitution was a compromise providing for an Association's right to enjoin a minister for cause within its own limits. (See Journal for 1889, minutes Nos. 25-27, 31, p. 7.)
In the last place, the By-Laws of the Convention, which are its rules of practice, by fixing the order in which Reports shall be read, provides that Reports shall be made to the Convention by the officers and the associated parts of the body. This involves that the reporting parties shall give information to the General Body of their doings, and of such matters as they as they may desire to call to the attention of the Convention. At the meeting of the Convention in Chicago, last year, the Convention adopted the recommendation of the General Council to refer back to the General Church of Pennsylvania its Report, with the direction to "omit from it all those portions which contain charges against the Convention," etc., etc. (see Journal for 1890, minutes 43-45), and this without having made an investigation of the grounds of those charges, this proceeding, besides being a gross impertinence, was an act of bad faith and of violation of the compromises of the Constitution.
Now, therefore, I hold that the General Convention has by repeated acts of bad faith separated itself from the General Church of Pennsylvania, and that we shall better promote the objects of our organization by releasing ourselves from a relation which seems to have brought with it so much hindrance to our movement, and interference with our freedom, and which has thus been rendered intolerable. Let the Convention go in peace, we will do likewise, since their way is not our way, and our way is not their way. We have charged them openly with hostility and animosity, and they have refused to hear and heed the charge, nevertheless, the charge remains and stands recorded in the history of the Church.
The Convention may make the silly attempt to amend reports, it cannot amend historical facts except by acts of repentance.
II.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRIESTHOOD.
RECENT events in the Church invite me, brethren of the General Church of Pennsylvania, to address a few words to you on a subject of especial importance to our Church and to the welfare of the whole body of the New Church. The organized New Church can be in order as the LORD'S kingdom on earth only when it is in the rational and loving acknowledgment of the LORD'S High-Priesthood, on which depends a genuine recognition of the Priesthood in the Church as the LORD'S office, by which He effects the salvation of souls. This genuine recognition is not possible where the Divine Authority of the LORD, inherent in that office, is not acknowledged. The administration of the ordinances and sacraments of the Church is of the Priesthood. I ask: Who introduces into the Church by baptism?
[Baptism is an introduction into the Church, through the gate of entrance into the Church, it is an external rite, and my inquiry is, Who is it that introduces into the Church by the sacrament of baptism; is it the Priest who administers the rite, or the congregation of the Church, or is it the LORD? We know, also, that the Holy Supper is the gate of admission into Heaven, and I ask, in respect to this, Who is it that introduces into Heaven by the administration of the external Sacrament of the Holy Supper? Is it the Priest, or the congregation of the Church, or is it the LORD Himself who bus established that gate of admission into Heaven?]
The answer to these questions will determine whether the party answering is in a rational acknowledgment of the LORD and of His authority or not.
The LORD says of Himself in His Divine Human, "All authority is given unto me in Heaven and earth." After this Divine affirmation of Himself as having all authority and therefore as the Source of all authority, He commissions His disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all things whatsoever He hath commanded and giving the blessed promise, "Lo! I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age. Amen" (Matthew xxviii, 18, 20).
"It is to be known that the LORD had authority over all things in Heaven and on the earth before He came into the world, for He was God from eternity and JEHOVAH, as He Himself clearly says in John viii, 5-8: 'O Father, glorify Me with Thyself; with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was;' but the reason why He says All authority was given unto Him in Heaven and on earth is because by the Son of Man is meant His Human Essence, which, when it was united to the Divine was also JEHOVAH, and He, at the same time, had authority, which could not have been effected before He was glorified-that is, before His Human Essence by unition with the Divine had also life in itself-and thus in like manner was made Divine and JEHOVAH" (A. C. 1607).
CONSECRATION OF THE REV. W. F. PENDLETON.
On the 9th of May of the year 1888 our well-beloved brother, the Rev. W. F. Pendleton was installed in the office of Vice- Chancellor of the Academy of the New Church. As incidental to this installation he was first inducted into the third degree of the Priesthood "in the name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST and by His authority," and was, at the same time by the same function invested with the office of a Bishop in the LORD'S New Church.
It is my desire, brethren, to impress upon you the fact that this solemn act was performed by me in the LORD'S name and by His Authority, because I acknowledge no other Name and know no other Authority than that of Him who has said: "All authority is given unto Me in heaven and earth," and because to act from any other authority would be to deny Him and to profane His Holy Name.
As you well know, this act was made the subject of an accusation of schism by a former minister of our body, now under injunction for disturbance in and attempted disruption of the same.
9
The accusation, so evidently proceeding from a spirit of revenge, was willingly heard and acted on by the General Convention, under the appearance, at least, of an expressed or implied obligation to further that minister's project of revenge, and by that Convention it was referred to the Council of Ministers. This Council, closing its eyes to the fact that your Bishop had openly declared against the trial of any question affecting the performance of a minister's official duties by any tribunal but one composed of his peers, referred the accusation to a subcommittee for investigation and adjudication, composed of two Pastors and one General Pastor; that is to say, to an incompetent Committee; and this Committee, with a sort of brutal determination to disregard the convictions of your Bishop, proceeded to consider the accusation without the presence of the accused and knowing that it could not have his presence and answer to the accusation. It is to be stated as an evidence of a remnant of a little saving grace in the mind of this Committee, that it did not venture to report to the opinions in respect to it and in regard to a letter written by me in reply to one received from the Committee. The only apparent judgment of the case I have noticed elsewhere.
In the letter of the Committee occurs the following:
"We shall be glad if you will communicate with us freely in reference to this matter, first, as to the facts of the case, whether they are correctly stated by Mr. Tafel; and, secondly, as to your view of the act of consecrating the Rev. Mr. Pendleton as a Priest or Minister of the third degree of the Priesthood in the New Church, as stated by Mr. Tafel. Do you understand that this act was performed under the authority granted to you by the General Convention as one of its ordaining Ministers, and that by the act of consecration Mr. Pendleton is invested with the power of ordaining other ministers? This inquiry seems to us pertinent to the question whether candidates for the Priesthood or Ministry in the New Church who may hereafter be ordained by Mr. Pendleton shall be regarded as Priests or Ministers of the General Convention, and, as such, entitled to full authority and respect by the general body of New Church people in this country?"*
* It is for the General Convention to answer this question. The consecration of Mr. Pendleton does not interfere with the freedom of the Convention, and the absence of authorization of the consecration by the Convention cannot possibly affect the validity of ordinations performed by him under the authority of the LORD. You see that the Convention itself has raised the question of superiority of authority. Whose authority is the superior authority, the LORD'S or the Conventions?
Of course, to such inquiries from a Committee incompetent to act in the case, and, therefore, without jurisdiction there could be no response except the following:
"I hold very distinct and well-defined views on the subject of the consecration of the Rev. Mr. Pendleton, and shall be prepared to express them at such time and place as I may deem advisable." I held that the Committee was not competent to ask me any such question.
PROFANE ASSUMPTION BY CONVENTION.
The present is the time and this the place to say that the implied claim for the Convention of original authority to confer ordaining powers is a profane assumption of what belongs to the LORD alone, who says: "All authority is given unto Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. x, 28). In no congregation of men, even though it be organized Into some form of a Church by an acknowledgment of the LORD and His Word and by some sort of recognition of a Priesthood, is there any original authority whatever to institute a Priesthood to the LORD or to give authority to Priests to perform functions ordained of the LORD as His means of man's salvation from evil by Divine Good. He says: "Ye have not chosen Me but I have chosen you and ordained you, that ye may go and bear fruit, and your fruit should remain, that whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My Name He may give it you" (John xv, 16). "It is not here meant that they should ask the FATHER in the name of the LORD, but that they should ask the LORD Himself; since there is no other way open to the Divine Good, which is the FATHER, but by the Divine Human of the LORD, wherefore to ask the LORD Himself is to ask according to the truths of faith; and what is so asked is granted" (A. C. 6674).
AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN IS OF THE LORD.
Whatsoever authority to ordain exists in the office of the Bishop is of the LORD and is ordained of the LORD, even as the authority to baptize vested in the office of the Priest of whatever degree is the LORD'S, being ordained by Him who commanded His disciples to go forth and make disciples of all nations-i. e., of all who are in good-baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew xxviii, 19). Like baptism and the Holy Supper, ordination is of Divine Institution in the LORD'S office of saving souls, which office is the Priesthood. Let it be repeated-no body of men can grant authority to perform the ordinances and sacraments of the Church. [No congregation of men can by any possibility grant authority to do what that body has no authority to do itself. No Convention has authority to baptize, still less has it authority to ordain. The rational Newchurchman will not recognize the validity of a baptism performed by such a body of men, or the validity of an ordination performed by the same. No body of men possesses any original authority over Divine institutions.
Such a body may be an agent in the hands of the Divine Providence to establish an external plane for the transference of the Holy Spirit, but no more. There is, therefore, in a congregation of men no original authority to control the administration of Divine institutions. They neither can establish them nor can they abolish them; if they can establish them, they can abolish them, the one includes the other. I say again, that such a body of men may be an instrument in the Divine hands to establish an external plane for the transference of the Holy Spirit, as is the case in the act of ordination, a plane into which the Divine can inflow. This much is granted to men by the teaching of the Church. But no more than this. The instrument cannot claim to be the principal; it is a profane Resumption for the instrument to make any such claim.]
The LORD gives the Spirit and man prepares himself and is set in order to receive the Spirit from the LORD. When received the Spirit is not of the man, but it is in the Office and of the Office which is adjoined to the man. In this Spirit is all the authority of the office, for the Spirit is the LORD'S saving truth and good.
Away, then, with the stupid and profane notion that bodies of men larger or smaller can grant authority to perform the offices by which the LORD does His work of salvation.
ALL ITS FUNCTIONS INHERIT IN AN OFFICE.
Further, the LORD does not institute an office to which He does not give authority to perform all its functions to perpetuate itself. This authority of necessity inheres in the office, as may be apparent from the Word of the LORD in the letter and in the spirit.
10
It is written:
"Do thou cause to approach to thee Aaron, thy brother; his sons with him from the midst of the sons of Israel that he may perform the office of the Priesthood to Me" (EXODUS xxviii, 1).
[I would have you note particularly that the office of the Priesthood is to be performed to the LORD, and not to men. When the Priest performs the functions of his office it is done to the LORD, and for men; men receive the benefit of it.]
This is said by the LORD to Moses and signifies the conjunction of the Divine Truth with the Divine Good in the Divine Human of the LORD, a conjunction to be effected in heaven and the Church by means of a representative of the LORD established in them, by which representative the Divine Truth may be presented "in an internal and external form" such as it is in the spiritual kingdom adjoined to the celestial kingdom.
[Hence it was that in the representation of a Church the High Priest when he entered into the sanctuary or Holy of Holies wore bells upon his garment. These bells were heard when he went into the sanctuary, to signify that those who heard them should acknowledge that the LORD was present in that place, and that the LORD was doing the work before them in the person of the High Priest, and that He was present in the Priest's acts. These bells upon the garments of the Priests, if they are understood and heard by the men of the Church, will lead them to acknowledge not the man, but the LORD, to turn away their thoughts and ideas from the man to the Office, which is the LORD'S Office, and to the truths and goods which constitute the internal of the Church, and are represented by that Office.]
DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE PRIESTHOOD.
Moses represents the LORD as to the Divine Good, and the coming together of Moses and Aaron represents the conjunction of Divine Truth with Divine Good. This conjunction was effected in the Divine Human of the LORD, which He first made Divine Truth, and afterward Divine Good. "Good is the esse of truth and truth is the existere of good; their conjunction is represented in the Word by two conjugial partners, and also by two brothers; by two consorts, when the heavenly marriage is treated of, which is the marriage of good and truth. . . by two brothers when the subject treated of is concerning a double ministry, which is that of judgment and of worship. They who discharged the ministry of Judgement were called 'Judges,' afterward 'Kings,' but they, who discharged the ministry of worship were called 'Priests.' And because all judgment is effected by truth, and all worship from good, therefore by 'Judges' in the Word are signified in the sense abstracted from the person, truth from good, but by 'Kings,' truth from which is good, and by 'Priests' is signified good itself;' hence it is that the LORD is called a 'Judge' in the Word, also a 'Prophet,' as also a 'King,' where truth is treated of, and a 'Priest,' where good is the subject, likewise 'CHRIST,' the 'ANOINTED' or 'MESSIAH,' when Truth is the subject, but 'JESUS' or the SAVIOUR when good is treated of. On account of the brotherhood between truth which is of Judgment, and good which is of worship, Aaron, the brother of Moses, was chosen to perform the office of the priesthood. . . . It is said in Psalm cxxxiii, 1, 2, 3, 'Behold, how good and delightful for brethren to dwell together, as good oil upon the head descending into the beard of Aaron, which descends upon the mouth of his garments.' He who does not know what is signified by 'brother' also what by 'oil,' by 'head,' by 'beard,' by 'garments,' likewise what is represented by 'Aaron,' cannot comprehend why such things are compared with the dwelling together of brothers. . . but the comparative resemblance is evident from the internal sense, in which the influx of good into truths is treated of, and thus their brotherhood is described; for 'oil' signifies good, the 'head of Aaron' the inmost principle of good, the 'beard' the most external thereof; 'garments' signify truths, to 'descend' signifies influx; thus it is clear that these words signify the influx of good from interiors to exteriors, and conjunction in the latter" (A. C. 9806) which, in other words, is the saving authority of good descending by truth from the LORD out of heaven, to fulfill the Divine Will in the ultimates of order in the Church, in which order the Divine that makes the Church is in its fullness, its holiness, and its power. In the case before us the ultimate is the High-Priesthood of Aaron. Aaron was chosen to perform the office of the Priesthood to the LORD, thus to minister in things most holy, and at the same time that there might be a representative of the LORD and of every office which the LORD discharges as the Saviour. Whatsoever He discharges as Saviour is from Divine Love, thus from Divine Good, hence, also, by the Priesthood in the supreme sense is signified the Divine Good of the Divine Love of the LORD, and this gives to the Priesthood its position and authority in the Church. The Priesthood is a Divinely established ultimate, to receive and administer for the salvation of souls, the Divine Good of the Divine Love of the LORD, an ultimate ordained of Him to go and bear fruit and that its fruit remain. Therefore does it represent the saving love of the Divine Human of the LORD.
Of this Priesthood we are taught that it is in the Church, an office performed to the LORD, and representative of Him, or of "every office which He discharges as Saviour, and whatever He discharges as Saviour is from Divine Love, thus from Divine Good, for all good is of love. Thence, also, by the Priesthood in the supreme sense is signified the Divine Good of the Divine Love of the LORD" (A. C. 9809).
[This is the point upon which we must fix our thought. The Priesthood is a sign to men on earth, and an external sign which appears before their eyes a sign of the Divine Good, of the Divine Love, by which the LORD saves men from their evils and introduces them into Heaven.]
Here, then, is the source of the authority of the Priesthood. How can its origin be claimed for men, or for congregations of men? Let us hear again the Divine Teachings on this important subject:
"There is Divine Good and there is Divine Truth. Divine Good is in the LORD, thus it is His Esse, which in the Word is called 'JEHOVAH,' but the Divine Truth is from the LORD; this, in the Word, is meant by GOD, and because what exists from Him is also Himself; therefore the LORD is also the Divine Truth which is His Divine in the heavens, for the heavens exist from Him, because the angels are receptions of His Divine: the Celestial angels receptions of the Divine Good which is from Him; the spiritual angels receptions of the Divine Truth which is thence; from these things it may be evident what of the LORD is represented by the Priesthood and what of the LORD is represented by royalty; by the Priesthood, namely, the Divine Good of His Divine Love, and by 'Royalty' the Divine Truth thence. That by the Priesthood is represented the Divine Good of the Divine Love of the LORD, thus every office which the LORD discharges as Saviour may appear in what follows from the Word.
11
In David, 'The saying of JEHOVAH to my LORD, sit Thou at My right hand until I place Thine enemies a stool for Thy feet; JEHOVAH will send the sceptre of strength out of Zion to rule in the midst of Thine enemies; Thy people are of promptnesses in the day of Thy fortitude, in the honors of holiness; out of the womb from the day-dawn Thou host the dew of Thy nativity. JEHOVAH hath sworn, and He will not repent, Thou art a Priest to Eternity according to My Word Malchizedek. The LORD at Thy right hand hath smitten kings in the day of His anger, He hath filled with carcasses, He hath smitten the head over much earth; He shall drink of the stream in the way, therefore shall He exalt the head' (Psalm cx, 1-7). From these words it is evident what LORD is as a Priest, consequently what the Priesthood in the LORD represented, namely, all the work of the salvation of the human race, for the passage treats of LORD'S combats with the hells, when He was in the world, by which He acquired to Himself Divine Omnipotence over the hells, whereby He saved the human race, and also at this day saves all who receive Him."
[Concerning this Priesthood, we are taught that it is in the Church, an office performed to the LORD, a representation of Him. We are taught that there was a Priesthood in the LORD, and this represented the work of the salvation of the human race, the work of Divine Good, the good of His Love.
This Priesthood in the LORD has been transferred by His Holy Spirit to men on earth, in order that He might have a representative to Himself among men, and that men, by this representation, might be led to a knowledge of the LORD. Hence it is said of Him, "Thou art a Priest to eternity." This is an everlasting proof of the Divine Love. When you acknowledge the Priesthood in this sense, and its authority as being the Divine authority, and not any authority given or granted by men, or by a congregation of men, you acknowledge that the LORD alone has justice and merit, and that it is His justice and merit alone that saves from sin and elevates into Heaven.]
"This salvation itself; because it is from the Divine Good of the Divine Love is that from which it is said of the LORD, 'Thou art a Priest to eternity according to My Word Malchizedek.' 'Malchizedek' is the 'King of Justice,' and thus salvation. According to what has been shown in n. 9715" (A. C. 9809). "The LORD had merit and justice because He fought alone with all the hells and subdued them, and thus reduced into order all things in the hells, and at the same time all things in the heavens, for with every man there are spirits from hell angels from Heaven; man could not at all live without them. Unless the hells had been subjugated by LORD, and the heavens reduced to order, no man could have been saved. This could not have been done: except by His Human, namely, by combats with them from His Human; and because the LORD did this from power, and thus alone, therefore He alone has merit and Justice, and, therefore it is He alone who with man conquers the hells, for He conquered them once and conquers them to eternity. On this account man has nothing at all of Merit and Justice, but the Merit and Justice of the LORD is imputed to him when he acknowledges that nothing is from himself but all from the LORD; thence it is that the LORD alone regenerates man, for to regenerate man is to drive away the hells from him, therefore evils and falses which are from the hells, and in their place to implant heaven-that is, the goods of love and the truths of faith-for these make heaven" (A. C. 9715).
[Let us acknowledge, then, that all authority to discharge the Priest's office is from the LORD alone.]
The LORD'S work is represented in the office of the Priesthood and it is in the doctrine concerning the Priesthood that men may learn to acknowledge that nothing of Merit and Justice is for themselves, but all for the LORD, who alone regenerates them. To regenerate man is to drive away the hells from him, or the evils and falses which are from the hells, and to implant heaven-that is, the goods of love and the truths of faith-for these make heaven and these are represented by the Priesthood. It is Justice to restrain the infernal attempts to destroy the human race and save the good and faithful (A. C. 9715). This Justice is of the LORD'S office as Saviour and of the office of the Priesthood in the LORD and of the office of the Priesthood from the LORD in Heaven and the Church. "Thou art a Priest to eternity, according to my Word, Malchizedek" (p. 20).
"The LORD'S good of merit is the only good that reigns in the heavens (see A. C. 9486), for the Good of Merit is also now the continual subjugation of the hells, and thus the protection of the faithful; this Good is the Good of the LORD'S Love, for from the Divine Love He had fought and conquered, and from the Divine power in the Human thence acquired, He afterwards alone fights and conquers, and thus saves to eternity for Heaven and the Church, thus for the whole human race. This, now, is the Good of Merit which is called Justice, because it is Justice to restrain the infernal attempts to destroy the human race and to protect and save the good and faithful" (A. C. 9715).
The Divine Good of the Divine Love, is the Divine Good of the LORD'S merit as SAVIOUR, and this is represented by the Priesthood. This Divine Good is in the LORD, it is His esse itself, and as this is every office which the LORD discharges as Saviour, we may understand what the Priesthood in the LORD represented, and why it it is said of Him in the Word, "Thou art a Priest to eternity according to my Word, Malchizedek."
Because the LORD, as to every work of salvation, was represented in the representative Jewish Church which prefigured the true Christian Church, and because this was represented by the High-Priest, and the work of salvation itself by his office, therefore there was not given to Aaron and his sons any inheritance and portion with the people, for it is said that JEHOVAH GOD is their inheritance and portion. If we add to these teachings the following: "The people represented heaven and the Church, but Aaron and his sons with the Levites represented the good of love and faith which makes heaven and the Church, thus the LORD from whom that good is" (A. C. 8909), it may appear clear why it is said that this distinction was made because the LORD, whose Good was represented by the Priesthood of Aaron, "was in them but not among them as one and distinct."
[The Jewish Church prefigured the Church which is now being established, not that anything of the external of that Church is to be introduced into the true Church, but the internal of those externals established by Divine institution, which internals are open, and the doctrine is introduced into the minds of the men of the Church, and which will lead them to do those things which relate to the government of the Church and also to Divine worship. That is as I understand it, for the people of Israel represent Heaven and the Church, whilst the Priesthood represented the goods and truths of the LORD. You will observe that the representation is very distinct, and this was carried out in the regulations of the Jewish Church in this; that Aaron and his sons received no inheritance or portion in the land.
12
All the sons of Jacob received their inheritance and portion, but to Aaron and his sons there was given none, for it is said that Jehovah Himself was their portion. The LORD Himself is the portion of the Priesthood and their inheritance, and they can have none in the land, because the LORD Himself is present with them in the truths and goods of their use from which they are to minister to Him for the salvation of souls, and in which they are to have their delights and joys. This is what we claim for the office of the Priesthood, and what the office has and of which it cannot be robbed by congregations of men, for they are robbing the LORD or attempting to do so. They cannot take from that office what the LORD has given to it, because it is in Himself and His Priesthood which He has established in its representative form.]
Thus the Priesthood as the LORD'S office is in the Church and in Heaven, a representative of the LORD and of His saving good, alone, an office which cannot be assumed and appropriated by the Church as being of its origination, an institution, but which is the Divine means given by Divine institution to be the ultimate of the Church's existence for the salvation of souls.
[The office of the Priesthood is in the Church, but not of the Church as an office-that is, one and distinct among the various offices that exist there. It is in every office that is performed by the Church, as the internal in its external.]
The conclusion is evident, therefore, that the Church on Earth, or a body of the Church, instead of being the source of authority to the Priesthood to perform the functions of its office, itself exists by virtue of the Priesthood and of the discharge of its offices which are the LORD'S, and which He has instituted that they may be offices to Him in His work of salvation. [If there is among men any source of authority it is in the Priesthood and not in the congregations of men. The Priesthood is the LORD'S office, and priests are to do His work of salvation. Hence from the Priesthood is the authority which is in it.] -
THE HIGH-PRIESTHOOD INCLUDES EVERY PRIESTLY OFFICE.
What is said of the Priesthood in general applies in particular to the High-Priesthood, which includes every Priestly Office, in its highest function of ordination, which is a placing in order and correspondence of natural with spiritual things. The discharge of this supreme function must needs be as much at the disposal of the official perception and judgment of the High-Priest or Bishop, or General Pastor, or whatever title may be given to the official and his office, as the discharge of the lower function of Baptism is at the disposal of the judgment of the Priest of the lower degree. [Otherwise it would not be possible for that office to be the Divine agent in conferring authority in respect to the lower functions, and the object and purpose of that is ordination into the High-Priesthood, so that the natural things maybe placed and set in their order and true relation and correspondence to internal spiritual things, and this is accomplished when the authority of the LORD is allowed full weight and respect in the Church on earth.]
[For the Divine authority cannot be in it unless it have the full authority to perpetuate itself, to continue itself by transference through the agency of one official to another, who is to act in his place or with him. The Divine will not be among men unless this be recognized and acknowledged. For in all true order one of the principal elements is continuity, for unless there be in the Priesthood the authority to continue itself; there will be a break in the channels of influx, into the performance of the use by which men are saved from sins, and the Church established.]
It is the Good of the Divine Love of the LORD which makes Heaven and the Church, and this good is present and active in its own office of saving souls, and inflows into all the truths which exist from it, and by which it effects its saving work, as well as in all the order of Heaven and Church formed by those truths, and expressing the fulfillment of the Ends of the Divine Love. Not until the Church comes to a rational acknowledgment of the LORD'S Presence in His office of the Priesthood and recognizes in the work of that office His authority to perpetuate itself and to continue the means and agencies of the performance of its work of salvation, can we hope to see true order established and the true Church take form and go forth in the power of the LORD to conquer the Earth.
This acknowledgment of the Priesthood necessarily involves the acknowledgment and reception of the good of the LORD'S merit and justice by which is effected the continual subjugation of the he I Is and the protection of the faithful. The denial of the Priesthood of its position in the Church, on the other hand, necessarily involves the denial of the LORD'S good and of His supreme power to subjugate the hells and restore the heavens to order and to establish a correspondence of order in the Church to the order of the heavens. Such a correspondence cannot possibly exist, where it is claimed that the authority of the Priesthood to discharge the functions of the office does not descend from above-i. e., from the LORD out of Heaven, but that it rises up from below-i. e., from men and congregations of men on Earth who are in evils and falsities and by them consociated with the hells.
[They who deny this authority of the Priesthood, actually deny that the LORD Himself and alone subjugates the hells. Now as He subjugated them in the human, and by this subjugation drives away from men the hells which are evils and falses, we would have you note that the conclusion is absolutely logical.]
AN APPEAL FOR FREEDOM.
You can see from what has been said that your Bishop holds the action of the Convention in the matter of Mr. Pendleton's consecration to be a violation of Divine Order proceeding from a denial of the LORD in the Office of the Priesthood, and you will understand that whilst he utterly repudiates the claim of original authority made for the Convention, and holds it to be a profane assumption of what belongs to the LORD alone, he at the same time declines absolutely to maintain any further connection with the General Pastorate of the Convention. He would be free to act as your Bishop in the discharge of the functions of his office according to the light vouchsafed to his understanding by the LORD Himself, who is the Divine High-Priest of the Church and the Saviour of the human race from the Divine Good of His Divine Love. [He would be free now and henceforth. Free, let me add, to own but one responsibility, not any responsibility that can be interrupted by the rude interference of men, but a responsibility to his Heavenly Father, whom he acknowledges as the only Source of authority, a responsibility more solemn and greater by far than can be any responsibility to men, a responsibility greater and higher because it looks to the LORD-and asks His presence and His Divine sanction of what man, in the weakness of his judgment, may decide to do.
13
Therefore, it is not, in his conviction, for congregations of men to decide that this man shall be ordained or that man shall be consecrated, but it is in the judgment of the high-priest himself or the Bishop or General Pastor, if you please to call him by that title. He must perform the functions of his office himself, and must be responsible for their right performance, a responsibility to Him who alone has authority-a high and holy responsibility. And you may be sure it is one that will be regarded as most sacred. At the same time in this regard of that responsibility, there is the presentiment of a state of freedom in the performance of the duties of this office which comes with special force to your Bishop at this time. As you well know, during the year he has been brought very near to the portals of the other world, so near as almost to hear the loving invitations proceeding from that world to enter there, and yet in the mercy of the LORD, a mercy hidden in His Infinite Providence, he continues among you in the discharge of his office, and he feels that there is before him in this office, which he does not desire to give up, but which he would resign if the old state were to continue, he feels that there is for him and for all who may come after him, for all who are to be clothed with this office in the future, the prospect of a freedom from the bondage of responsibly to the mere externals of the Church, such as has never existed in the past. They shall answer to the LORD alone, for what they do, and in the freedom of this state there is the supreme delight of looking to the Heavenly Father alone, that delight which the angels have, which is communicated to all infants who come into the world, when they are taught that they have but one father, their Heavenly Father, and that they have no human authority of a human father, but the Divine authority of the Divine Father who is Infinite Love, and who from His Infinite Love would have His children act in freedom, according to reason, in the performance of their duties, believing that the Divine Love will not regard their mistakes and their errors, but will look at their intentions. If, then, the intention of the incumbent of this office be to do the LORD'S Will, he can well bear that higher responsibility, and you, brethren, can well rejoice in his having received it, when you will find that you have taken a step forward in the acknowledgment of the LORD which has never before been taken, and that the LORD in His Priesthood and His High-Priesthood has a representative among you. Not that the representation reflects upon a person at all, for he is but a weak instrument to do the things commanded to be done, though he be a willing servant, one, who like yourselves, in his office acts according to his rational understanding of what the LORD teaches him to do. He is not led blindly by your commands or by the commands of men, but he is a rational man, with his eyes open and looking upward to his Heavenly Father for light and power to do the things which are of his office. Thus, if this be acknowledged in the Church, it will come into the Church, and advance it to a higher form of order and to a higher knowledge of the LORD. Therefore, in taking the step, which is proposed, I we are all entering into the higher freedom of spiritual life. I may state to you that whilst this is claimed for the office it is not without the prospect of trial and temptation, for at the present time there are applications in my hands for consecration into the Bishop's office, one coming from a far distant country and one from our own country. In regard to these it will be necessary for your Bishop to remember his responsibility to the LORD, in order that he may do what is right and just, and what shall be promotive of the justice and merit by which the human race is saved.
It is in the spirit of these remarks that I have stated my conviction that it would be the right step for us to take to sever our connection with the body which has attempted by a rude interference to deprive your Bishop of his right to exercise his judgment in the performance of the functions of his office, and to subject that office to those which are of an inferior degree. We must protect ourselves and the Church from falling into the great error of determining our principles and movements by votes and by the voice of majorities of men. Men are men before the LORD only as they respect His truth and good, and the love and life to which He leads them. I would have the men of this Church to be men before the LORD, so that the Church may grow up into the regenerate human form, and thus be consociated with the forms of the angelic world.]
THE RELATION OF THE GENERAL CHURCH TO THE GENERAL CONVENTION.
Friday Afternoon.
THE Bishop stated that the subject of the relation of the General Church of Pennsylvania to the General Convention was before the meeting, and invited all to express themselves freely, in order that the matter might be fully considered by any action was taken.
Rev. E. J. F. Schreck:-"Our actions should low from a knowledge of the LORD and of His Divine Truth. Only when we go to Him shall we have light, shall we see clearly what actions we are to decide upon. You, Bishop, as the high Priest among us, as the high priest of this Church, and as our teacher, in accordance with the principle that men must be lead by the Priesthood, by truth to good, have presented to us the doctrine bearing upon the subject before us-the Heavenly Doctrine of the New Jerusalem as it has come to us out of Heaven from God, and you have in a general way outlined what good this truth leads us to. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us, in the first place, to give diligent heed to the words of Divine Truth, to the words of the LORD that He Himself has revealed in the Spirit and in the Letter of His Word in order that thus in His Light we may see light.
"I think, sir, that every one present who has listened to the Divine words as they have been quoted by you in your address, has been impressed with the Divine Truth running through them that the office of the Priesthood is the LORD'S office, and that all the functions thereunto appertaining come from the LORD and not from men. That is the particular principle which, it seems, we must consider in the present crisis. Into this particular enter, I may say, innumerable universals, and it may perhaps be well, in a serious and solemn crisis like the one upon the Church, to consider them-to go back to the very first universal principle that underlies the establishment of the LORD'S New Church.
THE FUNDAMENTAL OF THE NEW CHURCH.
"We profess to believe in one GOD, the CREATOR and SAVIOUR of the universe. The God whom we acknowledge is one in essence and one in person, and the LORD JESUS CHRIST is that one God. The LORD JESUS CHRIST is He who from eternity to eternity is JEHOVAH, Who is the 'I AM,' Who descended into the world, assumed the Human, and glorified it. And, when the Church which was established by Him at His first coming came to an end, He again came into the world in the Divine Human which He had assumed and glorified. It is for us of the New Church to acknowledge freely and fully whether we truthfully believe that the LORD JESUS CHRIST has made a Second Coming. Do we believe that He in His Divine Human is present now among men? It has seemed to a number of those who are in the LORD'S office of the Priesthood that this fundamental principle, the fundamental truth of the New Church, which alone can lead to saving good within this New Christian Church, is not freely and fully acknowledged in the New Church as it professes to exist upon earth. The Divine Truth and the Divine Good, which is the Divine Human of the LORD, has been most mercifully revealed to us. It has come down to us in order to redeem and save us, in order to lift us up into conjunction with itself.
14
It has come into the world, the Light has come into the darkness, but the darkness has not comprehended it. It is for us to declare that the LORD JESUS CHRIST has either made His Second Coming in the Writings of Divine Truth, the Writings published through His servant, Emanuel Swedenborg-or He has not; they are the LORD speaking to us with His loving voice, or they are not. The acknowledgment of them is the foundation rock upon which the Church is established-this is the Head of the Corner which the builders have rejected, and which the builders are rejecting, but which must become the Head of the Corner. When the LORD comes in Divine Truth He comes to judgment. His judgments are continuous, and are taking place at the present day. The LORD was rejected when He came into the world the first time, He was rejected when He came into the world the second time, and He is even now rejected in His own house, in that which professes to be His New Church. It is incumbent upon us who see that this is the case to free ourselves, to come out of this bondage of falses which has gradually been woven about us, and come to a position where we can freely worship and acknowledge the LORD JESUS CHRIST in His Divine Human, as He has now revealed Himself the second time, and in this way co-operate with the LORD Himself in the salvation of men.
"For the purpose of establishing the Church, the LORD, as you, Bishop, have shown from His teaching, has instituted among men an office of the Priesthood, an office which does not belong to men, but to Him who is the Only Man, to the LORD alone. If there is anything that has been made clear in what you have said, it is this, that the Priesthood is the LORD'S office for saving souls, and that it is not man's office. The spirit which prevails upon men of the professed New Church to give more credence, more trust and reliance to the opinions of men than to the Word which the LORD has spoken, that very same spirit looks to me for the salvation of souls, instead of this LORD, and it is that spirit which has laid profane hands upon the office which is, among men, the LORD'S office of saving souls. If there is any duty incumbent upon us as men, whose eyes the LORD has opened, be it even to a small degree, it is that, according to the convictions that have been formed within us, we should remove every barrier to the descent and firm establishment on earth of the LORD'S New Church. If we pray day by day, as we do, 'Our Father who art in the heavens, hallowed be Thy name, Thy Kingdom come, Thy Will be done, as in Heaven, so upon the earth,' must we not then, sir, with all the power that the LORD has given unto us, see to it that His name be hallowed. His name is everything by which He is worshiped-that is, it is His Divine truth and good. He Himself, in his Divine Mercy and Grace, has come down upon earth, for our salvation, for our conjunction with Him. We must, I repeat it, do everything in our individual lives, and also in our corporate lives, to see to it that the Name of the LORD be not profaned, that such a profanation be shunned as a sin against Him, as an evil that originates in hell.
"That has been the endeavor of the General Church of Pennsylvania from its beginning. We have tried to raise aloft the banner of the LORD, to raise aloft its one guiding truth, that the LORD JESUS CHRIST has indeed come and that He shall-indeed reign. While respecting the freedom of others we have tried to lead them gradually to unite with us in being instructed by the Word of the LORD, and in seeing that the Writings are the writings of the LORD Himself. We have done this for a number of years. But is the LORD'S Name hallowed, in this sense, in the New Church, any more at the present day than formerly? Is there not the same and an increasing denial that the LORD JESUS has come in His Divine Word? We have kept ourselves open to follow the indications of the Divine Providence, what step to take from time to time. We have endeavored, weak as we may be, not to do anything hastily, but have trusted the LORD Who is the High-Priest of His Church, that He will show us, that He will lead us, that He will open the way in which we shall walk. We go on, contenting ourselves with thus promulgating the Gospel of the LORD'S Second Coming. But the Name of the LORD is not acknowledged any this more fully in the professed Church outside of the General Church of Pennsylvania, and those who are in sympathy with it. We pray further: 'Hallowed he Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come Thy Will be done, as in Heaven, so upon earth.' That follows upon the first acknowledgment of the LORD JESUS CHRIST and of the promulgation of His Divine Name upon the earth. We must first recognize the Divine Law-Giver, and the Divine Law which He giveth unto us. Seeing that that Law avails in Heaven, that it is the very breath of Heaven, that everything that exists in Heaven which is truly heavenly is founded upon that law, it is incumbent upon us to see to it that it shall be not only known and acknowledged upon earth, but that it shall be carried out in our individual lives and also in our corporate lives. The Kingdom of the LORD shall come, and His Will be done as in Heaven so upon the earth, and every time we pray that, it means a most solemn obligation, a most solemn responsibility upon our part that we shall do our utmost to co-operate with whatever strength the LORD has given us, and while recognizing that it is the LORD Himself who does it,-to co-operate with Him in the establishment of His Kingdom upon earth; the establishment of His Kingdom, not with the admixture of human conceits, not with the admixture of human wills such as has taken place in the recent proceedings and in the proceedings of years past, in which the office of the Priesthood has been threatened in the way that it has been-but it means that we shall co operate with the LORD'S Will, so that it shall be done upon earth, and that we shall arise from our own desires, wills, and cupidities, and that when anything is seen to be opposed to the LORD'S truth we should at once shun it, that we shall at once remand it to hell, from whence it came, and thus remove everything in our lives and in the life of the Church which will prevent the establishment and the firm grounding of the LORD'S Church upon earth.
THE TIME HAS COME TO SHUN THE EVIL POINTED OUT.
"It seems to me, sir, that you, who are amongst us as the representative of the LORD in the office of the Priesthood, which is for the salvation of souls, have plainly shown to us the indications of the Divine Providence; that the time has come for such a shunning of evils as sins against the LORD. You have shown to us that the LORD'S office is not untrammeled, that it is not free. How can the freedom which is the birth-right of the human race from the LORD Himself, how can that be preserved, how can we go on to acquire more and more of that freedom that comes from the LORD only, if we are recreant to our trust by not following the indications of Providence, and freeing the incumbent of the LORD'S office. The office of the Priesthood is the most holy office among men, and the Priests must be free to exercise the functions of that office as their conscience dictates, for it is through this that the LORD JESUS CHRIST, their High-Priest, speaks to them. The indications are sufficient to show that the Divine Providence is leading us this way. The New Church exists upon earth. But it so exists in order to become more and more free, in order to become more and more rational, in order to become more and more spiritual and heavenly, in order, to come more and more into conjunction with the LORD JESUS CHRIST who is its very Soul and Essence. That cannot be done unless when we see an evil we shun it.
"Every means has been tried in order to establish in the external organization-the common organization that exists in this country-to establish there the Divine office of the Priesthood freely and truly according to the Revelation which the LORD has made to us for that purpose, and these means have not only been ineffectual, but they have been cast back into our face. If that be not a most plain indication of our duty in the premises, I fail to see how we shall ever have a plainer one. Seeing this evil, and seeing that every means has been tried to overcome it in the form of the Church in which we have been organized, and that those means have proved ineffectual,-it is our duty, and it is our solemn duty and we cannot avoid it, to try new means to attain the end for which we are striving. External bonds make not the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church is an internal one, it comes from the LORD, and it consists in the one unanimous acknowledgment of the LORD JESUS CHRIST in His Divine Human, in the understanding, and in the hearts-that is to say, in the lives of men.
"The time has come for us to take such a stand among the nations upon earth that the Priesthood can, in harmony with the voice which they hear speaking to them from the LORD, establish the New Church upon the basis which the LORD Himself has pointed out to us-aye, upon that basis which the LORD Himself has given us, and which is He Himself; that the Church be established upon this sock, the Rock of Truth. As it is, are we in external form established upon that Rock? In the internal form, yes, but this must find expression in the external also, in the organization of the Church, in order that it may stand completely before the LORD as a man, as a man with flesh and bones and with garments, garments that will fit it, that will show forth the beauty and loveliness of the true temple of the LORD. The time has come. It is something that we owe not to ourselves I alone, it is a duty that we owe to the LORD, in the first place, and that we owe to the heavens. The heavens themselves need a basis here upon earth. Why has the Word been given? The Word has been given as a bond to unite Heaven and earth, in order that Heaven and earth may together appear before the LORD as a man formed into His image and His likeness.
15
The LORD'S Word has been given to us for that purpose, and it is our duty that we shall preserve that Word in forms that are most nearly pure and heavenly under the existing condition of things.
"For these reasons, Bishop, do I think that we should follow the Divine voice of the LORD as it has been heard in the address that you have given to us, you who, as Priest, are the representative of the LORD in this CHURCH. If we will harken to this voice truly, not only hear it but harken and give attention to it, love to hear what it says, and obey its dictates, if we do that we shall find that the action required of us is this: That we go forth and show to those who are about us, and lead them to the One Pure Fountain of Life, that all may come truly and in freedom, and drink of the water of Life freely."
"THE HOLY SPIRIT PROCEEDS FROM THE LORD THROUGH THE CLERGY TO THE LAITY." (Canons H. S. IV.)
Rev. John Whitehead:-"I think Mr. Schreck has stated the truth concerning the consideration of this subject. It should be from the internal to the external. The Bishop has presented to us the true internal phase of the subject which we should consider. We are told in the Writings that the Holy Spirit comes from the LORD to men, through the clergy to the laity, and we know from the Writings, too, that this cannot come in its fullness and purity to establish the Church in its order, as a means for the salvation of man, unless the clergy itself be in the order as laid down in the Doctrines. It comes through the various degrees of the clergy to the laity. And if in the establishment of the Church the degrees of the clergy are in disorder, everything else in the Church is in disorder; it cannot be otherwise. Confusion in the head produces confusion in the body; disease in the head produces disease in the body. The origin of disease is in the most interior fibres, therefore, unless the clergy of the Church be in the order as given in the Doctrines of the Church, there cannot possibly be a New Church upon the earth. It cannot possibly work for the salvation of human souls, it cannot do the work of redemption which the LORD desires and counsels to do through this Instrument of Organization in the ultimate form. We have labored for the introduction of this order into the organized body of the Church, as presented to us in the Convention. We have been in hopes that something of this order might from time to time more and more be introduced, until finally the Priesthood of the General Church of this country should be in the order and in agreement with the principles of the Divine Truth revealed by the LORD, and thereby serve to bring forth this redemption of the LORD into the country and save those who are in danger from the violence of the hells.
"This hope, to my mind, to the mind of our Bishop and to all our minds, instead of increasing has been gradually diminishing. We have seen in meeting after meeting, utter contempt of the principle of Divine Order, that there should be a High-Priesthood in the New Church And this contempt has been visited upon the head of our Bishop, whom we recognize as the wisest man in the Church, under the LORD'S instruction, from His doctrines, and from whom we have been privileged to see these principles of order. We have received them through the LORD'S representative, not that they belong to this man, but that he has received them from the LORD. Could we have received them if the LORD had not raised up this man as a representative of Him? I say no. Now we come to an issue. The Bishop has raised the issue. He, in his wisdom, sees that he cannot profane the office of the LORD'S representative by remaining any longer in connection with this disorderly condition. We are in freedom to follow the Bishop in this movement, or not. Each degree has its freedom. We cannot bind the Bishop, he is in a higher degree, he acts from his freedom and his rationality. But we have our freedom, we can follow the principles he has presented to us or not; every one is in freedom. It seems perhaps, at first glance, that there is something of force in this idea that the Bishop can no longer retain his connection with this disorderly condition in the General Convention. It seems as if we are forced to follow him. We are not forced. We can act according to our freedom and our rationality and follow him, or we can decline to follow; the Bishop can follow his convictions whether we follow him or not. It has come strongly into my mind that it is our duty to follow what the LORD has shown to us through him, for I believe now that that issue is upon us. We must follow what the Doctrines of the Church teach. In regard to this order of the Priesthood, we know that the Priesthood of the General Convention is in utter confusion and disorder, and that if we retain our connection with that we cannot receive the Holy Spirit, it cannot pass through the clergy to the laity. Therefore the very connection with Heaven is broken and no man can be truly saved through it.
"We can establish an orderly ministry that recognizes this most interior principle of the reorganized Church, which has not been recognized by the Convention as an organized body, and which on every occasion pours forth its utter contempt of that principle. I consider this to be the question: Can we have a general Priesthood in the New Church, and can we through that work for the salvation of human souls? I am ready at once to separate and sever the connection with Convention and try in an orderly way to make that connection with the LORD and His Truth that will bring down the New Church on the earth in its fullness and power, because the LORD Himself will then be with us, working for the salvation of human souls."
SEPARATION INEVITABLE.
Mr. O. A. Macbeth:-"Bishop, I believe the laity, for probably apparent reasons, have not much to say, and I rise only to call attention to what I consider an important part of the question. You may remember that after the Washington Convention the clergy were asked why we should stay in the Convention. The question was again asked last year in Philadelphia, why we should stay in the Convention. It was apparent from external, impartial observation, to any man who believes anything, that the situation was utterly inconsistent. That has not been denied, and now, in place of the clergy telling us why we should stay in, they give us reasons why we should go out, or why we should be separated. I hold that now the question would come up in a layman's mind, 'How do you propose to proceed to effect the separation; if anything further is necessary to effect it?'"
THIS RADICAL CHANGE UNNECESSARY.
Mr. Albert H. Childs:-"It is with great sorrow that I heard within a week that this General Church was contemplating to take up this question at this meeting. I knew it had been discussed at the last meeting of the Church, and since that, and although many favor a separation, still there are many who do not. In the discussion that we had last year and since, it seems that the greater part believed it was our duty to remain with the Convention, to do our duty to the Convention since we were a part of it, and to strive to inculcate the proper views, hoping that we might in that way be of use there. If we were unsuccessful in that and our demands rejected, they, if they saw fit, could break the connection, but it was our duty to stand firmly by the obligations which we had assumed with them. This, I thought, was the judgment which had been reached not only by ourselves but by those who took part in the discussion, as set forth by our pastors at that time. And, therefore, until with in a few days, I did not expect this action at the present time. I feel some hesitation in expressing myself very fully in view of all that was said, especially the words of the Bishop, outlining what his action would be. But still I think it is the duty of every one to say what he may have to say on the subject, and if any one is in darkness to get such light as he can. I have failed to see the great necessity for this radical change. It is a most serious matter, to my mind, and one that ought not to be lightly effected. In regard to the remarks of Mr. Schreck, what he said for the most part is what we all could agree to, especially where he took up the LORD'S Prayer and spoke of all the actions of our lives, but many applications I couldn't agree with, particularly when it seemed to reflect upon nearly all the rest of the Church outside of the Church of Pennsylvania. I am slow to believe that the state can be such as he describes. It seems to me that in the trouble of the last two years in the Church the differences are magnified and points of agreement minimized; that it is not impossible for us to go ahead for a time-I don't know how long-but I cannot help objecting to this suddenness.
"The Bishop brought forth many points which were comparatively new. For instance, that he could not feel in freedom in his present office to perform the duties of the Priesthood. Those are subjects upon which we all require instruction, and instruction that could not be given at a brief meeting like this. Why it is that the General Pastor finds himself so hampered in the performance of his duty I do not know; I believe one charge was that when Mr. Pendleton was inducted into the third degree of the Priesthood objections were raised to that as being contrary to the rules of the Convention, but that it was explained afterward he was not inducted into the Priesthood of the Convention, but into that of the Academy of the New Church."
The Bishop:-"Yes."
Mr. Childs (resuming):-"Then that would seem to me as not so serious, because they acted under misapprehension. When the matter was inquired into and a letter written asking for the facts, and to which no answer was returned, the matter was dropped at that point.
16
I do not know why the Bishop should feel himself so bound or hampered in the performance of his office and duty, unless it is that the rule of the Convention prevents him from ordaining ministers when he sees fit. If that is the case the rules govern all General Pastors alike, and may be changed by taking the proper means before the Convention.
"Those seem to be the main charges against the Convention and we should try to redress them before we take the extreme of parting from them. I do not see why it is not proper to have a general body of the New Church, whether this most general body shall be confined to this country, or embrace the Church throughout the world. The point is we find ourselves by our own free action members of what is calleed the General Convention, an therefore our obligations and duties are not to be lightly thrown off, but only for the very best of reasons.
"These are among the doubts and reasons which I have had, and I feel compelled to state them here, and to object to the separation at the present time unless I see better reasons than I at present see for this action. I know it has been said, I believe (that point has not been brought out now, but no doubt it will be, it was said in conversation), that the action of the Convention in rejecting the report from the General Church of Pennsylvania constituted good cause for separation. But I hardly think that unless many other reasons exist. That was one reason given among many that would be thought to have such serious weight. The report was hardly expressed in a way that the Convention thought proper, they conceived it to be disrespectful in its terms, and so recommitted it with the request that those offensive expressions be expunged. There was a great deal of feeling on both sides no doubt, but, to my mind, there has been nothing shown that justifies that extreme measure which is now proposed."
DOUBTS THAT MAY BE REMOVED.
This Bishop:-"I think some of the difficulties in Mr. Childs' mind, which have caused doubts to arise as to the proposed measure, can be removed by a statement of the facts of the case. The Convention, as I stated in my address, accepted and acted upon a resolution which declared the act of the consecration of Mr. Pendleton to be an act of schism by the introduction of a new Priesthood which would be in conflict with the Priesthood of the General Convention, and referred the question to the Council of Ministers which referred it to a committee. I claim that this was an incompetent committee because it was detailed and instructed to inquire into the performance of the functions of a General Pastor or Bishop, which could only be investigated by a committee of Bishops or General Pastors, according to the well-established principle in our country that a man can only be tried by his peers; and in the course of this attempted investigation they must fail, because the appointment of such a committee was contrary to the principles which I had always advocated. We had tried to get a proper tribunal in the Convention, but they treated our proportion with contempt. This committee, inspired by its knowledge of those things, endeavored to force an investigation when it had not the parties before it, and expressed its opinion that the act was disloyal to the spirit of the Convention. It did not attempt to say it was disloyal to the actual provisions of the Convention, but they invented a spirit to help them out of the difficulty.
"You will understand, then, that this is the charge made against your Bishop, of being disloyal to the laws governing his office, and that without any investigation of a proper kind, without regard to the fact that the Constitution under which we were all acting, as the Constitution of the general body, provided nothing at all which would sustain such an opinion. That I declare to be intolerable. I cannot act as your Bishop with any degree of freedom if I am subjected to that rude degree of interference with what I claim to be the LORD'S appointment of the duties of my office. I shall discharge them according to my conscience and not according to the conscience of men who have no knowledge of the principles underlying the organization of the Priesthood, and who claim to themselves an authority that is very far past their reach. You will understand, yourself, Mr. Childs, that if you are in the discharge of anything that you regard as your duty, and you are acting according to your conscience, and are called to account for it, and subjected to condemnation on the basis of a law which yon cannot acknowledge, and do not acknowledge rationally, you are placed in a very false position, and your freedom is taken away from you if that is to be continued. If this is permitted to continue, the office of the Bishop cannot be exercised by those in authority with any degree of rationality."
FROM WHAT SOURCE IS THE OFFICE OF BISHOP DERIVED?
Mr. A. H. Childs:-"May I ask from what source the office of Bishop is derived; that is the point. This Committee claims that the Convention is the source."
This Bishop:-"Yes, that is the point this Committee claims, that the Convention is the source. I utterly deny any such profane assumption as that. It is robbing the LORD of what belongs to Him alone."
Mr. A. B. Childs:-"By whom were the Bishops appointed?"
The Bishop:-"The Bishop was selected by the Church, by this Church; it involves this Church and its freedom."
Mr. A. H. Childs:-"Was there no confirmation by the Convention?"
The Bishop:-"There was a consecration by the officials of the Convention, but I maintain that was not an act of consecration by the Convention, which cannot consecrate. It is of the Priesthood to consecrate, and the act of consecration is simply an external representation of the transference of the Holy Spirit from the LORD through this channel to the individual who is consecrated, and to whom the office is adjoined."
Mr. A. H. Childs:-"It is an orderly method."
The Bishop:-"It is a provision of the LORD'S; but it is a most infernal disorder for the Convention or anybody to claim that it is the principal in such transference, it is simply instrumental; it is claiming for the means that which belongs to the end itself; which in this case is the LORD'S. For the LORD, as I have shown you, declares that all authority is His. The Convention says 'all authority is not the LORD'S, but the authority in this case is ours.' I decline to remain on any such assumption as that."
Mr. Whitehead:-"The question that seems to arise here is this: Suppose a Bishop does an act that seems to the organized Church to be contrary to the principles that should govern his office; what can they do about it, or what is orderly?"
The Bishop:-"It is orderly to do precisely what I proposed, and what you proposed to the general body of the Church, to do; to establish a tribunal that can try a question that relates to the office of the Bishop, a tribunal of General Pastors or Bishops; a tribunal whose competency the party accused can acknowledge, and before which he can appear; but the Convention, or the general body of the Church, has no earthly (and certainly no heavenly) right to insult the LORD'S office by subjecting it to an investigation by an incompetent tribunal and if we submit to that we submit to the greatest kind of disorder, a disorder that will open the way to all forms of disorder in the future."
Mr. Whitehead:-"May I ask, further, can the Convention put a man out of the degree of the ministry, or only out of its own body?"
The Bishop:-"It can withdraw itself from him, but cannot put him out, any more than the Church can put a man out of the Church who has been baptized into it. Baptism makes a man a member of the Church and the Church cannot declare him not a Newchurchman. The Church can say, 'We do not wish to have any further connection with him.' The Church can go away from him, but it cannot put him away, it is not possible, not within the competency of the Convention.
"The Convention cannot put a Priest out of a Priest's office, he alone can go out of it by resignation. The Convention has no authority over the Priest's office, it does not confer it, nor does it institute it, but the LORD has done these things for us, and we acknowledge all things done by the LORD. I know it is claimed that the Convention has instituted its ministry, I have myself been on the Committee that proposed the form of Constitution which they have, but we went on the ground that we would take the LORD'S teachings and try to formulate that in such a way that we could have an orderly Priesthood in accordance with the Divine Will and Law. That is all the Convention can do. It cannot originate any truth on the subject, much less can it originate the Spirit, for that is of the LORD Himself; and it is transferred by the establishing of a plane for the influx of the LORD into men, which corresponds to and represents the internal principle; into this He can inflow when this plane is established, by the consecration or ordination of an individual. He is set in a proper relation to the spiritual world, in such relation that the Divine can inflow and operate through him, so that the Holy Spirit of the LORD can be transferred through His agency to others. That is all that the Convention can possibly do."
Mr. A. H. Childs:-"While that has been done under our form of organization; it was considered the orderly way that that should be done by the General Pastors or Bishops, or whoever have the power to consecrate the Bishop."
The Bishop:-"Excuse me, it was never allowed that the General Pastors can do it, it was claimed that the Convention must do that by the vote of a majority of ignorant men."
Mr. A. H Childs:-"Is that the way?"
The Bishop:-"That's the way.
17
A particular Church selects a man for the office, and that particular Church is required to come to the Convention and the Convention passes a resolution, or not as it may think proper, and then the President of the Convention installs or puts into the office or consecrates him in that office. What is claimed in this case is that this form has not been followed. It has not been followed. It was intended that the true form should be followed."
Mr. A. H. Childs:-"And, further, that all General Pastors who, have once been consecrated have the right to induct others."
The Bishop:-"That is what is claimed by us, but they claim that the General Pastor has no right whatever in this case; that he must come to the Convention. At the same time the Convention claims that it can be voted, and the right given to some parts of the Church to vest the President or Official of the body with all the powers of a General Pastor, without this form. It is not by any means consistent. I have no doubt at all that the doctrine of the Church teaches that the right to consecrate to the office of General Pastor or Bishop is inherent in that office itself, and that any General Pastor or Bishop can perform that function without reference to any Convention or any congregation of men. Congregations of men may claim to be heaven when they may be hell; the claim does not make it right. I think it is time for us to enter an emphatic protest against these claims. They do not come down from the LORD. They rise up from beneath. No sane man will refer a question to the feet; the feet will aid the head, not the head the feet."
HISTORY IN CONVENTION RELATING TO THE CONSECRATION OF BISHOP PENDLETON.
Rev. L. G. Jordan:-"If you will allow me I should like to call attention to one or two particulars in order that while we have the opportunity the in formation may be exact. In the first place, the Bishop inadvertently used a term which is not in the original resolution as passed at the Convention at Washington. He spoke of a schism: now thereby hangs a tale. It is interesting to know that that word was used by the mover of the resolution but it was not introduced into the resolution itself. The resolution will be found in minute 129 of the journal of Proceedings of the General Convention, held at Washington in the year 1889. That resolution is as follows: 'That the Council of Ministers be requested to consider what action should be taken with respect to the induction of the Rev. W. F. Pendleton into the third degree of the ministry, by the Rev. W. H. Benade, on the ninth day of May, 1888, and his (Mr. Benade's) declaration that with him (Mr. Pendleton) should he established a priesthood that shell be the Priesthood of the Academy.'"
The Bishop:-"Before you go any further, I call your attention to this, that the Committee acted on that idea, and in its question to me, brought it out. They asked me whether I considered that Mr. Pendleton's consecration would involve of necessity his right to ordain others, and the priests so ordained should be considered priests of the general body or not. My answer is, That is for the Convention to decide. It involves the same idea."
Mr. Jordan:-"Of course I see it does."
The Bishop:-"They did not venture to bring it out, but I wanted to bring it out, as I knew that was the trouble. For it implied a claim, on the part of the Convention that no such ordination could be regarded as regular and orderly, and as conferring upon the ministry the right to perform the functions of that office, unless the members of the Convention by vote had practically instructed the General Pastor to so ordain; that, therefore, the source of the original authority was with the Convention, and not in the office; that is the idea I think that needs to be understood, and it will answer the difficulty in Mr. Child's mind. That is where the trouble comes in this case, and will come in all such cases in the future. Is this body of the Church prepared to acknowledge that there rests in the Convention any such authority as that?"
Mr. Jordan:-"One other point, Bishop, please. In the report of the Council of the Ministers upon that resolution, made at the annual session at Chicago, in this year, it is stated that the facts, alleged in Mr. Tafel's resolution of last year were substantially true, that the Rev. W. H. Benade did, on May 9th, 1888, induct Mr. Pendleton into the Third Degree of the Ministry, and that Mr Pendleton is recognized as a Bishop of the Academy of the New Church by its members. This investiture of Mr. Pendleton into the office of Bishop, though performed by a General Pastor of the Convention, was not done by the request of an Association nor with the sanction of the Convention, as required by the Constitution."
The Bishop:-"That is the point."
Mr. Jordan:-"Now, the Constitution does not require any such thing. The Constitution, if you will examine it, simply says that the General Pastors may, under these circumstances, invest one with the Third Degree. Then it provides that a man so invested and reporting to the Convention shall be under certain rules of the Convention. It says nothing which prohibits the General Pastor from investing another with the office of General Pastor or inducting him into the Third Degree in some other way than at request of an Association or with the sanction of the Convention. Therefore the Committee was obliged to report that the action was not in violation of the letter of the Constitution. You will find that in the report of the Committee. They acknowledge that Mr. Benade, in acting as a General Pastor and inducting Mr. Pendleton into the Third Degree, did not violate the Constitution, except to this extent, as they go on further to say that it was done under the rules of a body which is not a component part of the Convention. That is their complaint. It is a complaint of a matter for which the Convention is in nowise responsible. That is what is the matter with the Convention, that is the secret of the business."
The Bishop:-"You are right."
Mr. Jordan:-"They admit that it is not in their Constitution. The trouble is that they have not the control of the Academy. That's the thing in a nut-shell. Now they go on to say in extenuation of their complaint, 'While it appears to the Council that this act is not loyal to the spirit at least of the Constitution under which Mr. Benade holds the office of General Pastor, nor consistent with the unity of the ministry of the Church, we do not recommend any judicial action in regard to it, deeming it sufficient to present it in the light of the facts of the case.'
"Thus they deny the right to have any ministry not a part of the Church, which the General Convention now is.
SOURCE OF UNITY OF THE MINISTRY.
"The principle which we seek to recognize in the General Church is that there will be a unity of the ministry, and the address which we have heard this morning distinctly laid down the true basis of unity, the recognition of the Divine origin of the Priesthood. When we accomplish that we can have a unity, but when we agree that the unity consists merely in a loyalty to a Constitution established and controlled by a majority vote which can be changed very easily, and is changed at almost every meeting, merely in accordance with the ideas of the locality in which the Convention happens to be held, or the external circumstances which caused the delegation to be made up, then we depart from every principle of unity; even in our agreement we are simply subjecting our unity to the whim of time and circumstance. The unity, if there be a unity, is that which is derived from the LORD. The doctrine upon that subject has been made so clear that I did not suppose it would be necessary for one of us to refer to it. We only do so now to make clear the external principles, and arrange them in their order under that universal principle. The law has been given us, and I must say, after giving the subject such attention as I have, that the truths to which I listened this morning were almost in the nature of a revelation. Not merely because of the perspicacity of the mind of our Bishop, but because he succeeded in arranging in their order the principles involved in the case, from the LORD'S own teaching to His Church. It is that which illustrates, and it is that which affected me in the way I suggest.
"To finish this matter, the Convention went a step further and said although they did not regard it as quite loyal to the spirit of the Constitution, they still recommended that no judicial action be taken in regard to the matter, 'as it seems sufficient to resent it in the light of the facts of the case.' What would have been the logical conclusion if this act was disloyal to the Constitution of the Convention, disloyal to the true unity of the ministry? Was it a judicious thing to let it go without judicial action? How recreant were those men to their trust as guardians of the unity of the Church and its ministry when they were willing to let the thing slide and passed no resolution of censure of such an act. The Convention claims that it has the right by its Constitution, adopted as a compromise, to take under its charge all these people. There is a question in connection with that which I want to put to the Bishop, and in a few moments I will ask the privilege of putting that question."
A CANADIAN VISITOR.
Mr. A. K. Roy, of Toronto, Canada:-"Mr. Chairman, by your courtesy I feel bound to say a word here, although I feel considerable diffidence in rising to speak. I feel interested about the affairs of the New Church, not only in the United States, but in Canada and England. It seems to me it is the duty of every one to speak out. I begin by defining my position. At present I am a member of no Society of the New Church. I have withdrawn my membership from the Elm Street Society in Toronto, because I could not longer continue a member; the reasons I need not trouble you with now.
18
"Well, now, this crisis has come up before you in relation to the rejection, I suppose, by the General Convention,-at least that has precipitated it,-of the report of this General Church of Pennsylvania at Chicago, for the reason that it contained language which they considered disrespectful. The General Convention, by the rejection of that report, have virtually expelled this Church from the Convention. That is the position I took at Berlin and take now, and I have seen nothing to change it. Suppose this General Church goes to the Convention next year, how is it to go there? Are you going to send in another report? Probably they will treat you the same way and throw it back in your face. My contention is that, if you go at all, and they ask for a report, you must say, 'We cannot give you a report until you deal with the one we have given you,' and the consequence will be that they decline to receive it at all. That is not respect to this body. You do not commit them to what it contains; if it contained the most utter falsehood they ought to have received it, then turned around, criticised it, and passed their opinions upon it, that's the common-sense way and rational way of looking at it; I maybe wrong, but that's how I feel.
"Now comes up this question of the Priesthood. We have been told in Canada that we were about to be ruled by all sorts of Jesuitism and Priestcraft, and I don't know what else. The terms and the ideas in the minds of those seemed to me at least to have been derived from the state of affairs which has hitherto existed, and probably is existing at the present time within the realms of the Church of Rome, which, however, is not a Church but a religious organization that has denied the LORD, and erected a man in the LORD'S place. We could not be free of priestcraft if we believed everything that was told us, but I say we need not be afraid of priestcraft. Priesteraft is like every other craft, it is good in its own place. Lawyers' craft is all right in its place, so is priestcraft, and if this particular order of priestcraft which you want to erect here is wrong and disorderly, time will tell. In that wonderful struggle of the power of the United Netherlands against the power of the whole Empire of Spain, Philip the Second had a maxim, and it was 'Time and I against any two.' I am willing to take that maxim against this Priesthood; time will tell whether it is wrong. In the New Testament we find it stated 'If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; if it be of man, it will come to naught.' If this character of the Priesthood be a creation of your brain, and not drawn from the Writings of the LORD, in His relation to the New Church, it will certainly and surely come to naught. And it ought to, as the Secretary very truly says, and it will do so. There is the position I take. I am not afraid of anything in the New Church, I do not care much what it is, so long as it comes to me buttressed upon the Writings; if it comes buttressed upon that I don't say that I would accept it all at once, because I have found that certain parties in the New Church, a certain section of the New Church, are inclined to take the Writings and attempt to buttress up what I call preconceived ideas. Therefore I ask time to investigate and to satisfy myself, and that, I apprehend, is a claim which no one here will deny, not even any of these gentlemen who are in the office of the Priesthood or our-your Bishop."
A voice:-"Our."
Mr. Roy (resuming):-"I would not object very much to saying our. Now in Canada we have a similar crisis taking place. The President of the Canada Association is, and has been for a number of years past, recognized as a General Pastor of the General Convention. Most of you, I presume, have read the New Church Life report of the last meeting of the Canada Association in Berlin, and I must say that that report on the whole is an extremely good one, although a great deal of fault has been found with that report. I was present at that meeting, and I was present there as am here, as a kind of free lance to exercise the right of criticising everybody and anybody, and I will say that if that report were not right, I should not hesitate to criticize it, but that report on a whole is a very good one, and under the circumstances I think it is an extremely creditable one, and, more than that, it is an extremely charitable one, not only charitable to those who favor the views of the Academy which is held up to us as the greatest danger which we have to guard against, but it is charitable to the opponents of the Academy. If the language that was used on the floor had been reported by the stenographer and printed you would have been amazed at some of it."
(The speaker here entered at some lengths into the details of the T. Mower Martin incident,)
"Now, I long ago came to the conclusion that majorities, nine times out of ten, in the New Church at any rate, are wrong, and I am for one quite prepared to try the new order of things. But I must say this, that I thought that when I was coming to Pittsburgh to the meeting of the General Church, I was coming amongst a happy family,- where everybody was in harmony, where all were agreed. I find from what I have heard here this afternoon that it is quite the reverse, that they are not all prepared for the action which the Bishop has advised."
A voice:-"Nevertheless we are all happy."
Mr. Roy (continuing):-"Well, I hope you are, but at all events you are not all agreed so far as I can judge, from the utterances here this afternoon at any rate. So that that very fact is to me evidence that there is nothing to fear from the recognition by the Church generally, or by that section of the Church who are willing to recognize that order of the Priesthood as it exists and such as is spoken of in the Bishop's address, and as exists in the General Church of Pennsylvania. There is nothing to fear from it. I do not see why the Church should be so much opposed to it as they are. I for one am quite prepared to give it a trial. We have had in Canada two recent importations, of what is there styled Foreign Ecclesiastics, for what reason I don't know, I don't see why the New Church should be designated by geographical terms in any way specially.
"The Secretary referred to the Convention claiming to include a portion or all of Canada. It seems to me, while that is true in fact, still the New Church should be free from geographical boundaries, that should not come into the question at all. The unity of the New Church rests upon far higher ground, and on a far higher plane than that, so that I do not think we need to fear the annihilation of the Priesthood in that way, and I for one would be happy to try it and see it inaugurated, to see the results, what they are and judge it by them."
SECTION 4, ARTICLE F, OF CONVENTION'S CONSTITUTION.
Mr. Jordan:-"There are one or two particulars of fact that ought to be cleared up. It seems to me, and it may possibly help to the solution of the question, we will be freer to apply principles if we do not regard facts mistakenly. One important element in all this matter, especially from the side of the Convention, has been that it was claimed in the Convention that the original regulation of the work of the General Pastor intended to allow to Associations the right to invest the General Pastor or Presiding Minister for the time, so to speak ex officio, with, the functions of a General Pastor. It is said that as that article was originally adopted in the compromise Constitution, it was so intended to work; but, that when they tried to apply it, it was discovered, upon consultation with legal authority, that it was not so framed as to operate in that manner, and it is alleged that the amendment to the Constitution which has been referred to in the Bishop's address, where he spoke of New York and Illinois, was introduced for the purpose of giving effect to the original intention; that no new idea was thus introduced, but that it was simply making, in technical form, possible that which was originally intended, but which could not be effected, owing to the faulty wording of the section. The section No. 4 of Article V of the Constitution, Journal of the Convention held in Boston, in 1888, read:
"'A Pastor after a suitable term in the pastoral office, may, by request of an Association, and with the sanction of the General Convention, be invested with the office of General Pastor, with power to authorize Candidates, ordain Ministers, and preside over a general body of the Church, while acting as Presiding Minister of any Association, or of the General Convention.'
"Then there was a proviso that the adoption of this rule should not affect the status of the existing ministers, and those that were consecrated should be classed as General Pastors. Now, in amending that section they adopted such a clause as to make it read, in addition to what has been given:
"'Or, an Association may, with the sanction of the General Convention, temporarily invest the powers of General Pastor in its presiding Minister, or Superintendent, during his continuance in office.'
"Now, the point upon which I wish to secure the judgment of the Bishop is, whether in the minds of those who were interested in the formation of that Constitution, and who are here present, and who represent the principles of the General Church of Pennsylvania, there was any intention or any understanding that that loose power of operation as ordaining ministers or general pastors should be conferred ex officio, temporarily, and to cease with the end of the incumbency of the office?"
The Bishop:-"In point of fact there is no truth whatever in that statement, not a particle of truth. It is an invention of those who were in perplexity to find reasons for what they wanted to do, equal to that 'spirit of the Constitution.'
19
the Committee that first proposed the order as it exists there, was composed of four members of the Church; of these four there were who were in favor of an orderly ministry, but the other did not know what he wanted, it may have been in his mind, but wasn't in the Committee, I can assure you."
Jordan:-"Then it wasn't in the original idea of the Committee at all?"
Bishop:-"Not at all, there is not a word of truth in it, it is a pure invention."
Jordan:-"That disposes of the only defense that the Convention has for that action."
Bishop:-"And that is proved by going to the Journal of meeting of the Convention in Boston when this subject was first brought up; it is proved by the discussion of the subject there. The New York Association applied for power of the General Pastors, and it was opposed there. Those who belonged
Committee that were present in this meeting, Mr. Warren and myself, opposed that, and it wasn't brought forward at that time."
Mr. Schreck referred the meeting for fuller particulars to the Report of the Boston Convention, published in New Church Life, vol. viii, pp. 90-94.
CONVENTION'S VIEW OF THE ARRAIGNMENT.
Jordan:-"There was just one other point, as a matter of fact, that needs to be cleared up. It has been said that the understanding is that the only objection of the Convention to the Report of the General Church of Pennsylvania was that it was disrespectful in form. Now, that is a point which I am able to clear up, from experience. I was on the ground, and the record is plain. At Chicago it was suggested that we put our complaint into the form of a memorial instead of a report. I objected to putting in that form."
The speaker here quoted from the Report of Proceedings of Chicago Convention, New Church Life for August, 1890, page 131, the portion including the words:
"Chairman:-'Do not arraign the Convention.' . . .
"Chairman:-'It is out of order. You are entirely out of order. You are going on to arraign the Convention.'
"Mr. Jordan:-'I will not appeal from the decision of the Chair. It is not the form, it is the substance that the Chair objects to. . .
"Chairman:-'We object to both substance and form.'"
Rev. N. D. Pendleton:-"While you are speaking in regard to the decision of the Chairman you must remember that the Vice-President had before ruled the other way, so that there were two rulings given in the Convention."
Mr. Jordan:-"No. The Vice-President did not rule in that form, that is a point which I will clear up if necessary. I do not wish to discuss things that are not important, but it can be shown from the report that the Vice-President was practically on the same side."
Mr. Pendleton:-"Oh! I know that."
Mr. Jordan:-"The bearing of the observation is this: That a matter of fact it would not have made the slightest difference whether we put our report into the most polite and decorous language possible, it was the substance of the thing to which the Convention objected, and that was the matter which was distinctly brought before the Convention, for remember it was the President of the Convention sitting in the Chair, ruling upon the point, and not a single soul in the Convention objected to his ruling in that case. The whole Convention adopted his ruling, even if he had spoken in the heat of debate, or from excitement of any sort, and without the authority of the Convention, it was easy to cure the mistake and set it right, for there were plenty of people present who had not lost their heads, and from all appearance the Chairman in that instance was as cool as he usually is in the chair. I do not mean to say that that implies an iceberg by any means. Now, the simple fact remains there was no sort of redress open to us, there was no way of getting before the Convention except in the way in which we went, and by that method prescribed by the Constitution we approached them with our complaint. I do not believe it is possible to devise a way which will be any more favorably received, and I am certain in rejecting our report, the leading elements of the Convention, the ones that have the power to gain a majority vote, intended to shove out just as much of the substance of the General Church of Pennsylvania as they possibly could, and that the real bearing and effect of the rejection of that report was a substantial rejection of the Church of Pennsylvania. I say this as one who was a representative at the time."
The Bishop:-"Will you please to inform me whether there was any specification of the disrespectful language?"
Mr. Jordan:-"The specification of the disrespectful language was both general and some of it was quoted. It was that we omit anything that implied on the part of the Convention, as unjust, or unkind, or unbrotherly action; we were therefore left entirely free to say that they were brethren to us and had acted kindly and justly and equitably, but not free to say that they had acted unkindly, unjustly, and inequitably, no matter how strong our convictions that such were the facts. That was the substance of it, it was not an objection to specific terms, but if we had put into any terms that it is possible to employ by the use of the English tongue, the substance of the charge that they had not been fair, just, and right in their action against us, the same sort of spirit would have prevailed, and our report would have en rejected. It was not the Chairman alone that gave utterance to those sentiments, but it was the other members, and one of the officers of the Convention stated that the resolution was not as strongly put as he desired."
A RESOLUTION OFFERED.
Mr. Burnham offered a resolution declaring that the compromise between the General Convention and the General Church of Pennsylvania had been broken, and requesting Councils to draw up a declaration of the relation existing between the two bodies.
Friday Evening.
A VERY enjoyable social was held on Friday evening in the school-rooms, which were quite crowded with happy people. Several toasts were drunk and fitting responses made. The presence of the Bishop added not a little to the pleasure of the evening. The soft color of the walls, finished throughout with yellow pine, and the cheerful glow of the natural gas burning in open fire-places formed an excellent framing to the whole.
THE THIRD DAY.
Saturday Morning, November 15th.
THE meeting was called to order by Bishop Pendleton, who asked the Rev. Enoch S. Price to conduct the opening Services.
Bishop Pendleton then took the chair, but during the reading of the minutes of the previous day Bishop Benade came in and took the chair.
The Bishop declared that the resolution offered by Mr. Burnham yesterday was before the meeting.
ON MR. BURNHAM'S RESOLUTION.
Mr. Burnham:-"Bishop, I would like to suggest that in the discussion we avoid entering too much into the particulars of the existing condition of affairs in the Church. I noted yesterday that a large portion of the time was given to the little facts connected with the disorderly proceedings in the Convention within the last few years. Now, it is a small matter whether the disorder was on our part or on theirs. Whenever a disorder occurs, it is an evidence of something that is existing within, and it should cause us to look to see what is the internal condition, and when these facts have called to our attention the disorder, we no longer have to do with them, except to see if there is anything done upon our part for which we should apologize or make amends; that might be considered in a subsequent resolution; but this resolution has brought before us the question as to whether we are or have been in internal conjunction with the General Convention, and I think it would be well for us, possibly, in considering this, to ask ourselves these two questions: If the General Church were already existing entirely free from the General Convention, and the General Convention were also existing, would we, as individual members, provided it was orderly for us to do so, belong to both bodies? Would we care to belong to the General Convention? I think, if we look at the two bodies, the General Church as being what we hope it will be, and at the General Convention as it is, and ask ourselves the question, Would we care, as individual members, to belong to the General Convention? I think it would be clear to us what position we I should assume.
"There is one other thing to ask ourselves: Whether it interferes with the progress of the New Church in the world for us to continue to belong to the General Convention?
20
If we ask that, I think the answer is clear. Many matters were brought up in Joint Council, showing why there was no internal relation between the two bodies, and showing why it is that there can no longer be any conjunction; and if we confine ourselves to a consideration of those matters, and leave out of consideration, for the present, all these little things which have merely brought it to our minds, there will be no doubt but that we will be united in our actions."
Mr. A. H. Childs:-"Bishop, I only wish to call attention to one point in Mr. Burnham's address in which he lays down the basis upon which this question of union should be considered; That we should look at it as if we were now two entirely distinct bodies, and consider whether, that being the case we would be willing to unite with the Convention. That looks to me very much like one who, having assumed an obligation, should, when a little trial came in the course of time, in the carrying out of that obligation, consider whether he would have assumed that obligation in the light of subsequent events, and not carry it out, unless he would have made it at a later day."
Mr. Burnham:-"Bishop, I understand that our obligation is to the LORD, and not to men. I understand that if we have entered into an unwise compact, and we see it hindering the growth of the LORD'S New Church, we cannot only recognize that, but we can state that we see that clearly, and ask to be relieved from our contract, because we see that we had no business to go into it."
Mr. A. H. Childs:-"Bishop, it might be carrying the illustration a little too far to say that when a man finds himself unhappily married, and wishes to be free, he has a right to consider the question as to whether he would like never to have been married!"
MUTUAL TRUST NECESSARY.
Mr. George O. Starkey:-"Bishop there have been presented interior grounds for believing that the General Convention and the General Church of Pennsylvania are not one, as to the essentials of the Church. That being so, there is not an internal union. Where there is no internal union, external bonds of connection must, sooner or later, be loosened and fall away. Now, I would like to bring the question down to a more external plane than has been presented, and yet I hope to do it in a general way, and not go into particulars, for I recognize the danger of discussing particulars, at this stage of the discussion, at least. Internals rest on externals. Now, I maintain that the only basis of relation and connection between individuals or organizations is that of confidence, mutual confidence. There is an internal to that, and there is an external to the internal. Have faith in the LORD-that is, trust. Trust is the basis of the structure of human life. If we do not trust in the LORD'S intention, in His ability to carry out that of which He approves, we cannot believe in Him. Faith must descend into trust. Men who have dealings with each other must trust each other, or everything lacks a containing basis. Why, even in ordinary business intercourse, with men in whose internals we have not the slightest trust, that intercourse rests on a certain kind of trust; that trust is restraint, law in its most ultimate form. We know that there is a basis on which we can rely. The trust that I am speaking of now is a trust in the consciences of those with whom we deal, and in their qualifications, mentally and morally, to sustain that part of the compact which their business relation, or the relation of co-operation, involves.
"Now, do we trust the General Convention, and does the General Convention trust us? If so, then we can continue to have relations; if not, it seems to me a mere sham and a mere show for us to go on in relations with them. Do they trust our sincerity? Do they trust the faithful and full reports of our meetings-which are the fullest reports of the most sincere discussions that exist in the body of the Church as it exists to-day? Do they believe that those discussions represent our true thoughts and purposes, or do they not rather attribute to us some hidden and ulterior motive, something beneath, as being a move toward domination over the minds and freedom of men? I think their action and course and the utterances of their journals clearly show the lack of any such trust as I have outlined as necessary, else they don't read our journals. If they did, they never could accuse us of secrecy, of lack of charity. I think the lack of trust is clear upon their side. How do we feel toward them? What have we to rely upon? Their professions of charity and good-will and desire to leave us in freedom? I think that these questions must be answered, and to my mind they are already answered."
Mr. Swain Nelson:-"Bishop, it seems tome that this question of separation is not a new one. It seems to me that we separated long ago, and I wish to call your attention, to this. Is there any use in common that we can perform, or have been performing ever since we left them, or they left us, as the case may be. I cannot think of any uses that we are performing in common. The uses of the General Church are not performed by them, and it seems to me, if I remember your instructions, that the importance of life is in uses. In proportion as we can perform uses we will be able to prosper, and we will be able to perform those uses if we are entirely free."
ANOTHER VISITOR FROM CANADA SPEAKS.
Rev. E. S. Hyatt, of Parkdale, Canada:-"Bishop, not long after the meeting of the Convention in Washington, a prominent member of the Convention came down to Toronto, and complained that the Canada Association had not been represented at the Convention. He was told that Mr. Hyatt and Mr. Waelchli were there. This answer was, 'Oh! we do not regard them as Newchurchmen.' They do not regard us as Newchurchmen at all, and I must say that on our side we have very grave doubts as to their being Newchurchmen. How, then, under these circumstances, can there be any real bond of union? Now to be a Newchurchman is to worship the Divine Human in the form in which He appears in His second advent.
"In doing this work, do we find that the Convention are helping, or do we feel that they are hindering? For myself, I must say that in regard to their forms of worship they are an obstruction to worshiping the LORD in His Divine Human, and make it more difficult than it otherwise would be to lead people to clearly recognize that we know that thus LORD has effected His Second Advent. Therefore, if the Convention and those who sympathize with us, cannot co-operate in carrying out the essential uses of thus Church, where can there be a bond of union? It must rest upon those uses, and if we cannot co-operate in performing those uses, the mere fact of professing to be united together is a sham."
REVIEWING THE HISTORY OF THE NEW CHURCH.
Rev. C. T. Odhner:-Bishop, I have thought it would be useful briefly to review the history of the New Church, with respect to the issue that is now before us.
"From the very beginning of the New Church, there have been two classes of Newchurchmen. One that accepted the Revelation given by this LORD in His Second Advent, as a Revelation from Him to them. Another class who accepted it simply as a matter of understanding, without seeing that the Doctrines were to be realized in life. From the very beginning of the New Church these two classes have not agreed. In the latter part of the last century, when the question came up of establishing a New Church in an external form, these two classes were very distinctly drawn. There was a party of separationists and a party of non-separationists- One party, led by men like Robert Hindmarsh, and a few other outspoken Newchurchmen, were told that they must separate from the Old Church; another class, led by clergymen of the Old Church, who had accepted the Doctrines of the New, believed that the Old Church would gradually become New. These same ideas we find present at this time, and in them are involved all the principles of the General Church. The New Church in England became established by the efforts of the separationists, and during the first twenty years of its activity the New Church made such progress as it has never made since. Missionary work was made on distinctively New Church principles, and the authority of the Doctrines was more or less clearly seen. Gradually, however, the men of the New Church began to draw nearer to those who had remained in the Old, began to affiliate with the other class of Newchurchmen, and a separation took place in the external New Church, inasmuch as Robert Hindmarsh, and the soundest men in the Church with him withdrew from the General Conference. Again, after some years, these men, who had withdrawn from the Conference, were induced to re-join it, but the result was a weakening on both sides. Hindmarsh himself, never was, after he had again joined the Conference, what he had been before. His interest seemed to be taken up with more general subjects, and the Conference in general began to weaken more and more, until, at this date, it can hardly be called the LORD'S New Church.
"So in America, the same two classes of Newchurchmen have also been present. In the early days, when the Doctrines were first promulgated, and a Society was established in Philadelphia, there were among the early men, staunch Newchurchmen, among whom may be mentioned Jonathan Condy and Judge Young, of Pittsburgh, who, as you can see from history, belonged to the Order of the New Church. The New Church became more fashionable. Some, however, remained true to the sound principles.
21
After a time a Central Convention was formed.
"I think it is well to call to mind in this manner that separations have taken place before in the New Church, and that when again united on an external basis the end was not achieved; neither, of the parties were really benefited, as far as I can see.
"After some years the Central Convention (which, indeed, was not what we would now call a sound Church, but which had certain sound principles in it) was dissolved, and those that had been members of it (most of them, at least) joined the General Convention.
"But I do not see that the object of these men who joined the General Convention again has been achieved by that union. Peace has not been established in the Church. The same issue was present after this union with the Convention, and I believe that we can trace the proposed action of this General Church, we can trace its start to the very beginning of the New Church as it was established in the world, and I believe that this aim of such men as Hindmarsh and the early founders of the New Church was to establish such a Church as we are now endeavoring to establish. Let us now, therefore, take this step, and endeavor to establish the New Church on the solid rock of Faith in the Divine authority of the LORD'S Revelation, and then build the house accordingly."
FREEDOM NECESSARY.
Rev. N. D. Pendleton:-"Bishop, there is one principle that is fundamental to all New Church life, that we all recognize, and that principle is freedom. A man must have freedom in order to become a regenerated man, and all interference with his freedom is so much in the way of his becoming a regenerated man. It is the duty of every Church, as it is the duty of every individual man, to first guard its own freedom, or there is no hope of its regeneration.
"I do not mean by freedom what is known in this country at the present day as a man's rights, but I mean by freedom whereby a man would be enabled to live the life of the Church according to the Divine Order as laid down in the Writings, and this by the wisdom that comes from the LORD'S Revelation to him; because in no other way can man overcome his evils. He cannot rid himself of falsity and evil, except by the LORD'S Divine Truth, and that comes into his understanding from the Writings, and he should guard his freedom, in the first place, as being that essential element of his life, or that essential thing in his life, into which alone the Revelation of the LORD can come. Because this end of all is the salvation of human souls, which should be the action in view of every man of the New Church. And I take it that this is the end that we have in view in obtaining this freedom of the General Church of Pennsylvania to-day.
"Now, that freedom that I speak of is essential to this Church, and the question comes, 'Does this Church have that freedom as it now stands?' It seems very plain to me that it does not. From all that I have seen in the attitude of the Convention, I know that there is a state of opposition in the General Convention against this Church which, imperils its freedom to a greater or less extent. Now, we desire our freedom, and we know that unless we protect our freedom we are in no position to give another man his freedom. The Convention interferes with our freedom, and we are not in a position to give freedom until, we are in a position to maintain our own. There is a clash that disturbs the freedom of both. What do we expect to gain by remaining? Shall we have any more freedom by remaining in the Convention? Do we not know that if we stay there will be an endless and continual conflict. If we hold to our principles there is sure to be war to the end. On the other hand, can we hope that the Convention will come to us? We entirely repudiate any idea of giving up ourselves. It seems to be a hopeless case."
Mr. George O. Starkey:-"Bishop, I agree with the last speaker in his remarks on freedom. Our Bishop has appealed to us to give him freedom to act in his office. The General Conference knows nothing of such freedom, and why? Because it knows nothing, apparently, of trust in the men who discharge the functions of Priesthood; because it does not trust in their loyalty to the Doctrines, in their subordination of self to their function. The idea of government in the present world is founded on mistrust. Rulers are so hedged about and circumscribed that they can do nothing, instead of being loosed that they may do good. There is the essential point of difference between us. We trust their consciences; we trust our Bishop; and even if, in the last extremity, our Bishop should not be the man we take him to be, we still have to have trust somewhere. We have to trust in the tribunal of Pastors or Bishops. We must have trust; and that is what the Convention knows little about trust in the consciences of men."
ON THE PRIESTHOOD.
Mr. Whitehead:-"Bishop, something has been said about the internal and the external, and in my previous remarks I spoke of the General Pastorate as being the internal of the Priesthood, as being next to the LORD. Our endeavor has been in the Convention to establish order. Thus is not established at the present time, and the whole Priesthood is in confusion. The Bishop's address was largely on that topic, and he referred to the Priesthood of Aaron. There was a time, before that Priesthood was fully established, when Aaron did not have that representation, and then he represented the external separated from the internal. I wish to read something from the Doctrine on that subject, which I think is descriptive of the state of the New Church at the present day. It is really a prophecy of the state of the New Church."
Mr. Whitehead read from n. 10,397 and 10,400 of the Arcana Coelestia, and resumed:
"At the present time the general state of the Convention is looking to the letter separate from the internal sense, which is the Doctrine revealed by the LORD. There is a general confession throughout the Convention at the present day that they believe that the Writings are Divine and should be carried out in the Church, but when we come to discuss a particular subject as to what the Doctrines teach, there is an immediate rejection of that, and it is thrown aside by the saying that it is an interpretation, without bringing forth, anything to show that that interpretation is not true.
"In the matter of the establishment of a General Pastorate in the Convention, we have labored to bring the Church into that for many years, and the more the effort is made, and the more the teachings are shown to establish it, the more contempt is thrown upon the office. I have been in hopes that, by continual effort, the Convention would be brought into order, but those hopes are entirely dissipated. I do not see that by going there in the way we do, we can establish the Priesthood in the Convention, and I am convinced that the time has now arrived to establish it ourselves."
WHO ORDAINS: CONVENTION, OR THE LORD?
Bishop Pendleton:-"Bishop, I would like to say a word to try to make a little more clear the fact asserted by you in your address, that the Convention has laid a profane hand upon the Priesthood. If that can be made clear to us, our duty is plain, to remove ourselves from that profane connection and sphere. If the Convention claims (as it has been made clear to us that it does claim) to ordain-that ordination is in its hands, then it is clear that the Convention claims that which belongs to the LORD alone. If the Convention claims to be the LORD'S vicar on earth, then it is over-reaching itself. I think, brethren, that our Bishop has made that clear to us, and in stating what he did, and in showing to you, as he did, that the LORD alone ordains, he only said what is a part of a most universal truth of all human life, that the LORD alone does all things, and that man himself does nothing. Man, as our Bishop has said, merely provides the plane into which, the LORD can enter to remove the evil. The evil must be removed. Man merely provides the plane by acknowledging evils are sins against God: he provides the plane and the LORD comes and removes the evil from him.
"Does man baptize? Man provides the plane, and the LORD comes, through His holy office, and baptizes, and introduces man among Christians in the Spiritual world.
"Does man administer the Holy Supper? Emphatically, no! but the LORD Himself administers the Holy Supper-man provides the plane.
"Does man ordain? Is it not plain to us all that man merely provides the plane? The LORD ordains. Neither the Convention, any other body of the Church, nor the whole human race together can ordain. It is the LORD Himself who does it.
"This is a vital question that is before us. The Convention claims to ordain. We believe that the LORD alone ordains, and the Priesthood must be free. The ordaining Priest, the one who is in the third degree, must be free to go to the LORD and ask Him if this man who presents himself is to be ordained; not to ask men, but to ask the LORD. And how does he ask the LORD? He goes to the Doctrines of the Church, and those Doctrines teach him that if this man fulfills, all the requirements of the Doctrines which are provided for ordination, then the LORD ordains. So that it is, in the judgment of the Priest of the third degree, in the holy office which he is administering that the LORD ordains.
22
FREE THE PRIESTHOOD!
"Our Bishop has called upon you in the light of this truth, to rise in your might and tear away this profane hand that has been placed upon the Priesthood, that it may stand free before the LORD and before the Church to do the uses which he is called upon to do on earth; and the question is, Shall we do it? As has been said by Mr. Starkey, the element of trust must enter. Do you trust your Priesthood? Do you believe that they are bound by conscience? If you do, take away all external bonds from them, and let them be alone under the bond of conscience, under the bond which binds them to the LORD alone in the performances of their offices. Will they not perform it then with much greater freedom, and lead more clearly the men of the Church in the way to Heaven? I contend that that is the case. The more freedom the Priest has, the more he can apply to the LORD and be instructed by Him. Therefore, I say, take away all external bonds, if you love the Church and desire to have it established on earth. We are told that the more the external bonds are removed from the angels the more nearly they can draw unto the LORD; but, on the other hand, the more the bonds are taken away from the evil ones, the more they will rush into evil. If you believe that your Priesthood will rush into evil, then put these bonds on them. But, if you believe that your Priesthood has a conscience, take away these bonds and leave them free to draw near to the LORD in the performance of the uses of their office. This is the essence of the whole question. This is the issue. The Priesthood has been assaulted. Are we prepared to maintain the LORD'S office, the only office He has with man for establishing Heaven in the world?"
Mr. Walter C. Childs:-"Bishop Pendleton asked us the question a moment since as to whether we have confidence in our Priesthood, and stated that if we have we will carry out a certain line of action. I think it is safe to say that we have that confidence. If that alone was the argument, it might be just, but I am glad there is something else besides that. Were that the only reason given, an appeal by the Priesthood to the laity, that might be open to doubt. Now, I contend there is more than that in this.
"The question before us is in regard to severing our connection with the General Convention. The reasons for that have been given from every plane, by Bishop Pendleton and by the Bishop of the General Church from the highest plane, by other speakers from the lower rational planes. Now, take it upon the merest external plane. In the world there is one principle well established, that a partnership should exist only so long as full trust exists-a business partnership. A man that should get into great difficulties from a partnership would receive very little sympathy among business men were it knows that he and his partner had been working together for years without any trust one in the other. Now, can there be in any one's mind a reasonable doubt that this lack of trust exists between the General Convention and this Church? Mr. Burnham said that he would like to hear some reasons given showing how it would be not only to our benefit but to the benefit of the Convention, should we receive our freedom. Reasons have been given. It appears to me that we infest the General Convention. I doubt if any other body of men could make those men commit acts that we criticize. I can regard them with charity in that way, and in no other way can I can account for those actions except that we are, in a certain sense, responsible for them. A year ago I was among those who were very much opposed to leaving the General Convention, but I have thought over the matter a great deal during the past year, and it took me but a few months to make up my mind that we ought to leave the Convention. I think we infest the General Convention, and I am sure that they infest us. It is evident that we do not leave them in freedom. We stir up their evils. I have said that I was formerly in doubt as to whether we should leave the General Convention, but I am no longer undecided. I believe we should heave now."
Mr. Burnham:-"Bishop, I wish to enter a most emphatic protest against mixing up the office with the man. Bishop Pendleton has made a speech asking us to set the Priesthood free. He does not ask us to set the present incumbents of the Priesthood free. He asks us to give confidence to the Priesthood because it is the LORD'S Priesthood, knowing that if the LORD'S New Church is to be established, the LORD is going to provide that the incumbents of this office shall be true men. And I, as a layman, object to having this characterized as a personal appeal. I do not consider it as that at all. An assault has been made upon this office, and it is the business of the incumbents of this office to say plainly that such an assault has been made and to cry out to us, and I protest against its being characterized as a personal appeal. It is the LORD'S office of the Priesthood that has cried out to us, and that office we as laymen must support."
Mr. George O. Starkey:-"Bishop, I should like to ask a question, just as a matter of the use of terms. Would it not be better to say that the presence of truth on a higher plane causes infestation? We cannot say that truth infests, but that truth produces separations, causes the separation of falsity from truth, and of evil from good; and then the hells can invade those Societies that follow falsity and evil and infest them. But when a higher principle inflows into a lower, it produces the effect of a judgment, which judgment is a separation between that which is good and that which is evil, that which is true and that which is false. In that sense we may speak of infestation in such a case as this."
Mr. W. C. Childs:-"Bishop, I want to make a little explanation. I am much obliged to Mr. Burnham for setting me right. I did not mean that this was a matter of personal appeal, but that, to a certain extent, it had that appearance. I think, from what was said by Mr. Pendleton, and also by the Bishop, that it looks like a personal appeal to the laity to show confidence in their clergy."
Mr. Burnham:-"Bishop, I want to apologize to Mr. Childs if I apparently reflected on him."
THE SEPARATION ALREADY EXISTS.
Dr. Edward Cranch:-"Bishop, it occurs to me to ask, first, the question, are we not already practically separated? Whenever a member of this body comes In contact with the members of other New Church Societies, he is looked at as a different order of being, and that has been so for some time. We are seized upon and asked all kinds of questions as to what we believe, and what we do, and what we mean by this, and that, and the other, and how we do things in our Church. Practically, it looks like a separation on the commonest plane of thought. And that was emphasized to me as long ago as five years when one of the most prominent leaders in the Convention (I may say the most prominent) asked us, 'Why did all you folks in Erie join the Church of Pennsylvania? Didn't you know it would separate you and isolate you from all the rest of the Church?'
"Now, in regard to the office of the Priesthood. A parallel occurs to my mind that may be of some little use. When a body of men or a family choose a physician, they do not create the office in him; they simply give their adhesion to him as to views. His office is created after his preparation, and the establishment of the proper plane in his mind of the duties of that office; his office is established by the legal judgment of other members of the class holding the same office; and that office once held by virtue of that preparation and the declaration of his equals in that office, cannot be withdrawn from him, except by his own vicious conduct. He may even hold the office in abeyance, cease to exercise its functions, but the office still remains with him unless he has destroyed his usefulness by his vicious conduct.
"Now, it would seem as if the same would apply to the Priesthood. When a man has once evidenced his preparation for the first, second, or third degree of the Priesthood, and his fitness has been passed upon by his superiors, that office cannot be taken away from him by any body of laymen; it can only be taken away by his own vicious conduct which destroys that plane in his mind. It does seem to me that that would he saying, in effect, that a man might be living one year in the third degree of the Priesthood, and the next year might be taken down from that degree.
"There is another thing in regard to one of the uses of the General Church in which we have never been upheld by the General Convention, and that is the careful training of the young in the principles of the New Church, as brought down to the details of every-day life, except as it is taught to them in sermons, in Sunday-schools, and in Doctrinal classes. In other words, there is no attempt to instruct the young in their daily life so that they will become citizens of the New Church, and afterward citizens of Heaven. On the other hand, the view taken by the other aide is something like this: 'Let the children be free when they are young.' But children cannot be free-they cannot have freedom and rationality until their minds are formed. The expression has often been repeated to me: 'Let the children be free when they are young, and when they are old enough they will choose for themselves.'
"The separation has actually taken place, and it only remains for us to effect the formal act of separation."
THOSE THAT CANNOT PULL TOGETHER SHOULD SEPARATE.
Mr. Ralph Means:-"Bishop I wish to give expression to my views on this question. First, I would ask if I make any error that I be corrected.
23
"The Writings teach us that the Ancient Church derived its intelligence from the science of correspondences. In the New Church it should be the same. The Writings and our observations teach us that no two men are the same as to intelligence. Therefore, the General Convention, as a whole, and the General Church of Pennsylvania, being two different men, are different also. Being different, we can compare them, according to the science of correspondence, to that which signifies intelligence, the horse. The horse, a noble animal! Here, we see from observation, the same difference prevails. No two horses are exactly alike. Now, let us put two different horses together in one team. If those two horses do not pull together, there will be no movement forward. One horse backs, the other goes ahead; one pulls at one time, the other remains still. There is no advancement. Now shall the LORD'S New Church advance, or shall it stand still from opposing forces? We of the General Church should at least advance. Let us go on with the work which the LORD wills shall be done for the salvation of men. If we cannot pull in harmony with the General Convention, let us be separated and pull separately. Let us accomplish something which is to the advancement of the LORD'S New Church.
"Now, there are uses at present, uses which must be performed immediately. There are members of this General Church of Pennsylvania who have contributed toward one use three or four different times, and are willing to make a further contribution. I speak of the preservation of the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg in the ultimate form. Having been appointed a member of the Committee to solicit contributions from the members of the General Church of Pennsylvania for this use, I know whereof II speak. Now, there has been a considerable sum contributed and handed over to the General Convention for this use. This sum is insufficient for the performance of the use. Now, if this use is a proper one to be performed, it should be performed, and the LORD will provide the means. And if we cannot act in unison with the General Convention in performing this use, let them return this money that we have handed over for this use. We do not say that we will do it all ourselves and hinder others from contributing to the use. Let the union of the General Church and the General Convention remain, in whatever use they can perform together. But if we cannot act together, let us act separately. Let us go ahead.
"There are other important uses, too, but I will not mention them. But you see the point, that two horses to make progress must pull together."
Mr. Alfred Acton:-"Bishop, I think there is no doubt in the minds of any of us here that there is an internal separation between this General Church and the General Convention. That separation has been felt for a long time. But there was some doubt as to whether we should make the external separation, and the reason for that was shown at the last meeting in Philadelphia. In your address there you stated that the Convention is not a Church, but that the members of the Convention may be Churches. Now, sir, many of us present thought that by leaving the Convention we should injure those in the Convention who were Churches. Mr. Bostock made some remarks, during which he read a great many passages respecting Noah, and he compared the Convention to Noah. Thus there were many in the Convention who were misled, not from malice, but from ignorance. Mr. Bostock's speech had great influence on this Church; his position that the Convention represented Noah, and that the state of Noah was the state of the Convention was largely instrumental in deciding this Church not to separate externally from the Convention. I should like to hear something upon that point from you, because I think it would clear up the minds of many as to the duty of the General Church, since the remark was made last year."
The Bishop:-"I am sorry that Mr. Bostock is not here. I should like to repeat what I wrote to him: That I considered his illustration very unfortunate indeed, in view of his own desire to manifest charity. It was simply saying to the Convention, You are drunk, therefore we will be charitable to you."
Mr. T. L. Forest:-"Bishop, I would suggest that there is more truth than poetry in that."
The Bishop:-"Drunkenness signifies evil. It seems to me that he failed in pointing his charity."
CONVENTION DENIES THE WRITINGS TO BE THE WORD.
The Rev. A. Czerny:-"Bishop, we are taught in the Writings that a Church is a Church from the understanding of the Word, and a New Church, of course, is a Church according to the understanding of the Writings of the new Word, as we have it. In the New Church we have the Internal Sense of the Word given in the Writings of Swedenborg. Now, from all that has been said so far, and from many things said last year, it is plain that the majority of the Convention do not understand the Writings to be the Word, or, if they do, they won't acknowledge it. Now, as a Church is a Church according to understanding, the Convention cannot, therefore, be a Church, because it either does not understand the Writings or does not live them. Therefore, Mr. Acton's point was, I think, a correct one, that they have long been separated from the Church. The Writings have not been understood, and, so far, these men have never been in the Church. It seems to me it is plain enough from all the illustrations that have been given that we should not continue our union with a body that is not a Church."
HOW CONVENTION TREATS THE HOLY SUPPER.
The Rev. Ellis I. Kirk:-"Bishop, it has been evident for years that there has been a distinctiveness in the internal principles existing in the General Church of Pennsylvania and the General Convention. It has been evident that there has been a chasm and that there is a chasm existing between the two bodies, and it is also known that this chasm has been or was bridged over by a compromise Constitution, and that so long as the two organizations acted in good faith they could meet upon this bridge and act, as it were, together on an external plane. But that faiths has been broken. First, by assaulting our Bishop, and thereby laying profane hands upon the Priesthood, and next by rejecting the Report of this body of the General Church of Pennsylvania. It is also asserted that the General Convention deny the Divine Human of the LORD. And, as a confirmation of all these, that of laying profane hands upon the Priesthood of the General Church of Pennsylvania and the denying of the Divine Human of the LORD, we have another confirmation in the worship in the General Convention on Sunday. In the setting of the table on Sunday we find that they have prepared it in such a manner that the General Church of Pennsylvania cannot worship with them in the Holy Supper; prepared it in such manner that it is of themselves and not of the LORD; prepared it as dictated by their own intelligence and not as dictated or taught by the LORD. This worship is the ultimate of the principle which actuates them in all their proceedings in the Convention, and is a part of that distinctiveness which renders it impossible for members of the General Church of Pennsylvania to act with them. It is a confirmation by them in the Holy Supper that they deny the Divine Human of the LORD as He is acknowledged in the General Church of Pennsylvania and by its Priesthood. It is evident in the Holy Supper that they are laying assaulting hands upon Him, that they are laying profane hands upon Him. It is evident from that Holy Scupper that they are placing the crown of thorns upon His head, that they are crucifying Him. And it remains now for us to decide whether we will attempt to follow them across this chasm from which the bridge has already been withdrawn and fall into the abyss, crying, 'Crucify our LORD,' or whether we will proclaim the LORD our King and desire to dwell with. Him forever in the Kingdom that He lies prepared for us."
THE JUDGMENT ELSEWHERE.
The Rev. W. B. Acton:-"Bishop, I have heard many reasons given why we can no longer remain in connection with the General Convention. There is one other reason that I should like to point out, and that is, not only for our own sake, but for the sake of those who are held in bondage, we may say, in other bodies of the Church. The principles that we have recognized and have endeavored for so many years to bring before the Convention have at last been making themselves manifest in other bodies. We have seen this in recent accounts of the Conference of the Church in England, and also in the Canada Association. These principles have produced separation there, and it only remains for us to separate, when it will become possible for those who believe that the LORD has made His Second Corning, and believe in the Writings of the Church, to join together and form one body. At present they are scattered, because there is no possibility of their being united. We have been told that the office of the Priesthood is not free. It cannot be free. The Secretary has already alluded to a recent act of a Convention which makes it possible for a Convention to consecrate an office for one year. Why should it not give the power to ordain laymen to perform the different offices of the Church for one year? If we do the one, why not the other? The Priesthood we recognize is the head of the Church, as constituting the internal of the Church, and if that be not in freedom, the body cannot be in freedom, the body cannot grow. We do not recognize the Convention as being a Church at all. It calls itself the 'General Convention.' That point was brought out by you, sir, at the last general meeting of this body, and it has become more and more evident to my mind, and l am sure to other minds, that the only Church that exists really is the General Church of Pennsylvania, and we are held in bondage to this external body of men.
24
It indeed has become manifest that we shall have to cast off all these external restraints, and I hope that we shall all see this so clearly that we can act as a body."
CONDITIONS HAVE BECOME INTOLERABLE.
Mr. Jordan:-"Bishop, I want to say a few words on a single point. It is admitted that we have disagreed. All the reasons that have been given here this morning as to why we- should separate in the external form from the General Convention, with some slight exceptions, existed last year when we held our annual meeting. I understand the basis of the reason why we should not now separate from the General Convention to be that the same state of things of which we now complain existed last year,-and that our action at that time was in the nature of a condoning of the offense. If there is any real value in the objections to now severing the relations between the General Church and the General Convention, it is because they suggest that we have condoned the offense-we agreed to live together, although we disagreed; we simply agreed to disagree; and that on that account, so to speak, the slate had been sponged off.
"Now, it would remain only for us to determine whether, since the last meeting of the General Church of Pennsylvania, there have been such occurrences as in any degree to revive the old offense and to renew our right to complain, notwithstanding we had, as it were, forgiven the offenders. It seems to me perfectly plain that in every respect, in all of the planes treated of in the address of the Bishop and by the speakers upon the question, that we have had reason to restore the charge, because all the elements of the original offense have been renewed, and, to a very considerable extent, aggravated-making it perfectly plain that it is of no use to attempt, year by year, to or give this thing, to wipe it out, to agree to disagree, but that the time has come when it is apparent that it is perfectly hopeless for us to go on another year doing the same sort of thing.
"Now, it is not sufficient ground for separation that we do not agree. It is perfectly right to say that if we do not agree it is our duty to try to agree; and we have done that; but when it is shown so clearly as it is in the address of the Bishop that the disagreement is upon such essential matter that it is impossible for us to come together or into agreement, then it is a valid statement of the reason why we should sever our connection, that we disagree. We disagree not only as we did before, but the thing has become intensified by the action of the last annual Convention, so that the state has become perfectly intolerable. It was barely tolerable last year. We could manage to live through it in a certain way, because we simply bent our back and bore the burden. But it has now reached such a place that it is impossible to carry it. It is not necessary for us to specify the particulars; they have all been laid before us. But we may mention that action which allowed the New York and Illinois Associations to do about as they pleased, but not us; and although that action was held at Washington, we did not complain of it as going to such an extent that we could not possibly live under it; but the fact is, as soon as they again met, the Convention went forward and acted upon that thing, gave effect to it in such a form that it is now impossible for the Priesthood of the General Church of Pennsylvania to be free. At Washington the disorder consisted merely in the introduction of that clause into the Constitution; it was then, we may say, a disorder in posse. We know, from past experience that the Convention is very apt to disregard its Constitution, so we thought it possible that they might disregard this and not give it its full swing, that they might even apply it in the manner in which they have treated the act of the Bishop of the General Church of Pennsylvania, in acting in one of his capacities and by virtue of and under the authority vested in him as a Priest of the Third Degree-that is, disregarded their own law. But they have shown us that they mean to give both intent and effect to that clause of their Constitution-not only giving to the New York and, Illinois Associations (and any others that want it) the right to act in this disorderly manner, but preventing our representatives from acting in an orderly manner, and according to our convictions. We did not know but that they would see the folly of that clause in the Constitution and would expunge it, but they have not done so. So that in that and in other instances, in matters relating to the Priesthood' they have made it unbearable since the last meeting, thereby restoring the original cause of complaint and aggravating it.
"Then, again, on an external plane we had ground for disagreement; we couldn't get on together, although we had agreed to disagree, and established a compromise Constitution which would enable us to have certain of our rights guaranteed-although we had known that it existed prior to the last meeting, and condoned it. Since the last annual meeting of the General Church, they have again violated that compact. The letter of the Constitution has again been violated, to say nothing of its spirit. We are required to make our report, and they won't take our report.
"Now, what is the situation? Simply that all the original causes of disagreement have been renewed; they have been aggravated; and we move forward from this moment with the prospect that, no matter how much we try to come together, all these things will again and again come up as matters of disturbance. So that the question finally resolves itself down to this: Has the moment come for the declaration of our independence from them? We all recognize that we have been separated from them in internal matters all the way along, but we thought we might possibly have some ground upon which we could agree externally. The events of the last year prove that not only have the worst offenses of the past been renewed, but they have been put in a more aggravating form than ever before.
"Therefore, I say it is perfectly plain that the time has come, and that this is the time for us to make our declaration of independence.
NOT YET CONVINCED.
Mr. Albert H. Childs:-"Bishop, I cannot but speak of certain things said by Mr. Jordan. He said that the objection has been raised that, owing to this thing having been urged a year ago in Philadelphia, and no separation having then taken place, it was a condonance of the offense. I had not heard that point raised before, and, as for myself, I would say that I never had thought of it in that way, and I may certainly speak for myself alone as I do not seem to have anybody else to speak for I. But still I will say in regard to that matter that I think it would have been very much worse to have made the separation at that time than I think it is now. I think that would have been an unseemly haste which would have allowed less time for the change of opinion that has taken place to a very large degree than has been allowed. I have listened to the course of this debate, and I presume it is nearly over, as it is evident what the sentiment of the Church is. I have listened with great interest, and have tried to do so with an open mind. I have no private position to maintain. I only stand in the position of being both a member of the Church and of the General Convention, and it would only be a change of position to be willing to depart from one of those bodies. I had hoped to see things in a different light, for ever since I have been in the New Church, like every one else, I am quite accustomed to changing my opinion on various points. But I know it is contrary to the Doctrines of the New Church to change your position until you have seen reason to do so rationally and freely. I have heard many strong arguments made here. I believe that if this vote had been taken a year ago, at the time that Mr. Jordan speaks of, there would not have been nearly so many in favor of the separation as favor it now. I believe if the vote had been taken a few months ago, even, the result would not have been nearly so much on one side as it is now. And while I do not question for a moment the sincerity of the change that has taken place in the minds of every one that has seen fit to advance it, yet, as it has not become clear to me, I think I would not be true to my teachings were I to leave the Convention until I see the reason. I think if the reasons given here could be urged as unquestionably correct, if the state of the Church were really as claimed to be by some, there would be, perhaps, sufficient reason for changing. But I must say that lam not yet ready to accept the fact that those living in the light of the new dispensation are generally in the deplorable state as to the acceptance of the Doctrines of the Church that they are said to be. However, this is neither here nor there. I hope that, whatever may occur, each will believe in the other's sincerity in maintaining that which he believes to be right."
Mr. Schreck:-"Bishop, in response to the last remark of Mr. Childs, I hope that he understands our position. The attitude toward the Writings which we have ascribed here to the rest of those that comprise the Convention does not apply to individual members, but applies to the bodies as bodies. We are taking their official utterances as officers, and" also their public acts as officials, and as public bodies. I myself believe that there are very many (I hope indeed, that it is a great majority of those professing the New Church) who are honest and sincere in their acceptance of the Doctrines of the New Church, and who will in time come to take the ground that we are taking now. And that is the reason that we advocate this movement. We advocate this step in charity to them, and in the belief and trust that they desire to come into the true order, but that at present they do not see, and therefore, cannot acknowledge, because their leaders, their pastors, do not recognize the truth on the subject."
25
Mr. Albert H. Childs:-"Bishop, I just wish to say one word more, and that is: While I regret what is evidently about to take place, I do not mean to say I feel, any hopelessness in regard to the future. I believe that whether the Church acts in the wisest way it should or not, in the providence of God, good will come out of it for the New Church eventually."
A VARIETY OF CHURCHES TAUGHT.
Mr. Burnham:-"Bishop, there is one view of the case that I would like to bring to our minds, and that is this: We are taught in the Writings that there will be a variety of Churches. Now, it is evident that we are not of the same genius as the General Convention. We have no right to mix these varieties. If it is told in the Writings that varieties will exist, we must agree with this, and not make any effort to create one Church, which must be made to fit all forms of mind. It is our duty to see that the Churches are established in freedom, whenever there is an indication that the Churches are ready to do that; otherwise we cannot attain true results. The trees, the flowers do not follow the same form, but must each take on the form of its kind. While we acknowledge the authority of the Writings, we know that different minds interpret them differently. There is probably none of us here but hopes that our friends come into the new light. But, while we are in a mixed condition as we are, when several bodies, having different forms of mind, have received the truth in a different way, to try to come together only disturbs the mind of every one. Now, I do not mean to say that a Church which claims a doctrine that we know is a false doctrine can be a Church at all, if it continues to hold that doctrine. But it might be possible that several Churches could exist, all of them founded on the Writings and true doctrines drawn from them, that they saw in a little different shape. We can see that here, even, some people want to claim that that is true that we see is not consistent. They ought to see that men that believe that the Writings are Divine authority could not agree with them if they hold the opposite.
"Now, it is hardly fair to compare a falsity and a truth; but what I want to say is that if we can't see the truth from their standard, it must be apparent that those two things are inconsistent; and it is for such reasons as this, that we should separate. The more we examine into it, the more different reasons we see. We must by our act set other Churches free to do the same as we are doing, and not try to bring all together. It is something we have no right to do. It is something, evidently, that was not contemplated. And now, if we see that clearly, we should not hesitate to go ahead."
NO PROGRESS WITHOUT SEPARATION.
Mr. Pitcairn:-"Bishop, I am thoroughly satisfied that there will never be progress until there is separation. We have in different cities different churches, virtually, and I have no doubt, as the Church grows, in every large city there will be different churches, so that those that differ in genius may select and worship, each in a church which agrees with the state of life in which he is. We know what the Doctrines teach in regard to choirs. Where there is not harmony there can he no true progress; we see the disorder that exists in the General Convention, and I think we will all agree that there can be no true progress as long as we do not agree with them.
"Now, the General Church of Pennsylvania is not limited by geographical boundaries. We are united upon fundamental principles of doctrine, upon our ways of looking at the doctrine; all those who are in sympathy with the fundamentals that we hold can unite with us. The General Convention has endeavored to make a geographical limit; it is, true they take in Canada; and there has been a great deal of criticism because we of the General Church extended our limits, and when we questioned hat decision it was combatted; but we insisted upon taking in Societies who are in sympathy with us, and we have, in consequence, a more homogeneous body.
"Before the resolution is put, I shall read the Articles in the Constitution of the General Convention in regard to membership, and then I would like to hear what effect the passing of resolution would have upon the ministers and members of General Church."
The speaker here read Article I of the Constitution of the General Convention, followed by Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Article II.
"I believe that is all that is said in regard to membership. Now I would like to hear in what position we would be placed should this resolution that is before this body be passed."
Saturday Afternoon.
AFTER the noon recess the meeting was called to order by the Bishop.
Mr. Burnham withdrew the resolution presented by him in favor of the following one, by Mr. Schreck, which is largely based on the original resolution:
A SUBSTITUTE FOR MR. BURNHAM'S RESOLUTION.
"WHEREAS, It has become evident that the General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the United States of America is not in internal accord with the General Church of Pennsylvania, and that the external bond existing under and by virtue of a compromise compact, has been rent asunder by the General Convention, both by the acts of its duly constituted officers and also by the acts of a majority of its members in solemn convention assembled, Therefore be it
"Resolved, That the clause reading 'constituting a part of the Most General Body of the New Church in America, styled, "The General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the United States of America,"' be hereby expunged from Paragraph I, Part II, on 'Organization' in the Instrument of Organization of the General Church of Pennsylvania, and
"Resolved, That the Councils of the General Church of Pennsylvania be requested to draft and transmit to the General Convention a Declaration, setting forth in appropriate terms the position of the General Church of Pennsylvania and the circumstances of the severance of the external bond heretofore existing between it and the General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the United States of America."
Mr. Schreck briefly explained the changes from the original resolution, among them being one affecting the opening clause, which in the original resolution was reversed, reading, "That the General Church of Pennsylvania has never been in accord with the General Convention of the New Church," etc.
Mr. Pitcairn seconded the resolution.
THE WORDING OF THE PREAMBLE.
Rev. N. D. Pendleton:-"I should like Mr. Schreck to state the reason a little more clearly why he has changed the resolution and said that the Convention is not in internal accord with the Church of Pennsylvania."
Mr. Schreck:-"The reason of it is that the preamble, as I have it, is more in accord with the position taken in the Bishop's address, that the Convention has separated itself from us."
Mr. Pendleton:-"The General Convention is a larger body of which this body is a subordinate portion, and from a sense of acknowledgment of that fact it might be stated in the other way."
Mr. Schreck:-"That would not be acknowledging a truth. The fact that Convention is a larger body has nothing to do with the case. This matter to be considered is which is the body that has really separated itself from the truth, and which is not in it. The Truth has always been and still is; the separation therefore is on the part of that body which is not in the Truth. Again, we are not in a subordinate I position. That is a mistake. It would have been in order for the General Church of Pennsylvania to be subordinate to the more general body; but that is the very principle that the Convention has not recognized. It is the principle of subordination in the Priesthood. If subordination does not exist in the Priesthood, how can it exist in the Church?"
Mr. Pendleton:-"I acknowledge everything that Mr. Schreck says. It seems to me that the General Convention has been a body that has been constructed or erected on a compromise between the different bodies of the Church, and that government has extended its limits over this special Church, and as a matter of fact it is my belief Bishop, that the General Church of Pennsylvania has gone away from the Convention in this sense, that the General Church of Pennsylvania has made progress an the line of truth, and that the General Convention has not done so. I am in favor of that sentiment, and if that is in accord with the resolution, I am in favor of the resolution."
26
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONVENTION.
The Bishop:-"I think the answer to the question proposed by Mr. Pitcairn may help to solve that difficulty. If you will take the Instrument of Organization of the General Church of Pennsylvania, you will see that this Article I of the Constitution of the General Convention is substantially identical with the Article on Membership of our Constitution, for the simple reason that it was introduced into the Convention Constitution by the same parties and for the same reason that it was introduced into our organization. That was the primary idea. It was carried from our organization into that of the General Convention. The purpose was to avoid the old confusion and error of constituting a body as a meeting composed of delegates without a known and recognized constituency. Delegates were sent from a supposed constituency which was not in existence and was not recognized by the Constitution of the Convention. And the purpose of making this change was that the constituency of the delegation to the Convention might be known and recognized, that therefore all individuals who desired to cooperate should be recognized as members of that general body, as it is with us. And hence it is that this Convention is made up of all those who acknowledge the Doctrines of the New Church, as revealed by the LORD from His Word in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and who unite with this Body in performing the uses of the General Church.
"You will see that the instrument of organization is substantially the same. That was for the purpose of expressing in the Constitution a recognition of the constituency of the delegations to the annual meetings; which annual meetings were supposed to constitute the Convention. They who were sent as delegates to that body were said to be members of the Convention, thus making a body of an annual meeting and introducing the disorder of calling a meeting a body, and constituting a majority of that meeting the very body itself. That was the purpose of it.
"I believe the object of the question [by Mr. Pitcairn) was to ascertain what would be the effect of the passage of this resolution upon the members of this body. I have no doubt it would be the duty of the members of the body to do precisely the same thing individually that is given by this resolution to the Councils to do for the whole body; to withdraw from membership of the General Convention, so that the General Convention may understand that so many of its members have gone out as members of that body, and hence it would be impossible for those who have withdrawn to become the constituents of delegates to any general or other meeting of that body, they having withdrawn from it. Then they will understand the opinion of the individuals and the relation of those individuals that constitute the membership of thus body to their body, that they are no longer members. It is not necessary that each individual should withdraw separately, but a general statement might be made and signed by the members and sent into the General Convention; I think that would be the effect of the passage of this resolution."'
A voice:-"The General Convention does not recognize individuals as members, does it?"
The Bishop:-"It does by its Constitution. It does not practically, that is the error in its proceedings. That was intended to be corrected by this amended article of the Constitution. I speak with a knowledge on the subject, for I wrote this myself and I know what my intentions were in writing it, and what the Committee understood to be the intention of it. It was opposed considerably."
Mr. Pitcairn:-"You endeavored to make a Church of it, and it wouldn't be made a Church of."
The Bishop:-"I suppose that is it."
Mr. W. C. Childs:-"They made the membership different from year to year."
The Bishop:-"Yes, the delegates differed year by year, and so the membership of the Convention differed year by year, and the action of the Convention varied year by year, an hence you may understand how the Convention had in its own Constitution the ground of inconsistency of its action. It could not be otherwise than inconsistent in itself for its action was determined by different delegations, which delegations would act, in a great measure, according to the state of things in the State or town in which the meeting took place."
Mr. W. C. Childs:-"In regard to membership, how are we members now, how long does this last?"
The Bishop:-"You are members, according to this Constitution, as long as you do not withdraw from your expressed action in being accepted as members."
Mr. Childs:-"Then it is simply another case where they have not been consistent with the Constitution."
The Bishop:-"They have not acted according to the Constitution any more than we have. We have to repent of our negligence, and repentance is always in order. We have not done right heretofore, and we must do right now, and we must begin by doing right, which is an act of charity toward what is claimed to be a larger body with which we hare been connected.
"The first act of charity is to do what that resolution provides for, in expunging that pact of the Constitution so that we will understand that we are not members, and when withdrawals come in they may understand why that is done; that it is the action of a body harmonious in itself. We would show the Convention that we are a harmonious body, if you look at the matter from a charitable point, by withdrawing from that body the discordant note which they claim we have been in it. If we have been the discordant note to destroy the harmony of the Convention, we now withdraw, and they can harmonize now as much as they please. They can be unanimous with the President if they choose, for he is unanimous."
Mr. Ralph Means moved that this resolution be declared important.
The motion was seconded and carried.
Mr. A. H. Childs called for a division.
Whereupon the Secretary announced thirty-five (35) in favor of the motion, and one (1) opposed.
Mr. Means:-"If I may be permitted, I want to state my reason, and it is rather late in the proceedings to give the reason, but it is this, that we want to show historically that the resolution of severance was not carried by a majority vote. The record is now made."
Mr. Burnham:-"Bishop, I have heard that there are some parties in the room who have not even expressed an opinion, and who do not agree with us."
The Bishop:-"It is to be hoped that they will exercise their freedom and express themselves fully."
Mr. Burnham:-"If there are ladies present who desire to have a statement made are they not at liberty, and should they not be requested to ask some gentleman to state what they would say?"
The Bishop:-"If anybody knows how to inspire anybody else we may take it for granted it is the ladies."
OPPOSED TO SEPARATION.
Mr. McCandless:-"I want to say a few words. I profess a great deal of ignorance on the subject, because I have not been able to attend the last few years, and I only know from hearsay what has occurred. It seems to me that the ground laid for separation, as stated by some of the speakers, is utterly inefficient. It was stated that the action of the last Convention in refusing to accept the report of the General Church was illegal; they had no authority or power to refuse to accept it, and sent it back, therefore their action is null and void, and as such the General Church can take no notice of it whatever. It was certainly great disrespect to the members of the General Church, shown by individual members and a majority present at the Convention. But as an act of the Convention it was null and void; they had no authority to do it under that Constitution at all. Therefore this body, as such, should take no action on it. That is as it appears to me. Another point that appears to me, and I mention it with great diffidence, is as to the authority conferred upon the Bishops or General Pastors, how they receive their authority as such. Is there any law by which they were appointed as such, is there an orderly way in which they have been appointed and are to be appointed?"
The Bishop:-"There is a rule of procedure."
Mr. McCandless:-"In the General Church or in the Convention?"
The Bishop:-"In the Convention."
Mr. McCandless:-"As I understand, and I may be entirely wrong, the last Convention at Chicago refused to confirm the action of our Bishop in the consecration of an Assistant Bishop in the Academy, not of the Church."
Mr. Schreck:-"You are mistaken."
The Bishop:-"That is a mistake."
Mr. McCandless:-"That was my idea, I maybe wrong."
Mr. Schreck:-"They were not asked to confirm, and therefore could not have refused."
Mr. McCandless:-"From my imperfect knowledge, I understand that was one of the grounds taken by the Church at this meeting as a reason for declining."
Mr. Schreck:-"That is a misunderstanding."
Mr. McCandless:-"Another point that was emphasized by one of the speakers was that the majority was always wrong, that the majority of the city in which the Convention chances to meet ruled at the time, that the state of the people in the various cities was entirely different.
27
That although Chicago was certainly very antagonistic to the General Church and you might say the same thing was the case in Washington, probably a majority of the delegates in Pittsburgh would carry the thing the other way, yet it might not be the case."
The Bishop:-"And it might."
Mr. McCandless:-"It might be the case. Therefore the action of the majority, at the time the delegates were in Chicago, seems to me was not the action of the entire Church as such, it was that of those who chanced to be present at the time, and might by no means represent the unbiased feeling of the majority-that is, a very large majority of the individual members of the Church throughout the United States. Therefore I do not think that action, at this moment, should be taken. I am not prepared to vote with the very large majority as I think present, and I propose to place myself on the record as voting with the minority."
Mr. Burnham:-"I want to call attention to one fact in answer to that statement, and it is that this might not be the sense of the majority of the members of the Convention. The minutes of the proceedings of the Convention have been published and very extensively circulated, and it has not been called to my attention that their action has been repudiated to any great extent."
Mr. Starkey:-"I was sorry to hear the remark of the gentleman [Mr. McCandless], for after asking for information he immediately states that he has formed his conclusion as to his action before he has got that information, which nullifies any real value-which the information imparted might have."
Mr. McCandless:-"The conclusion is on the other side."
Mr. Jordan:-"On a single point as to whether the action is null and void, I would like to ask the gentleman who referred to the illegality of the action [Mr. McCandless], whether he would consider the action of an assassin who plants a dagger in his bosum null and void; it is an illegal act, and isn't he bound to take notice of it."
A voice:-"It is unconstitutional."
Mr. Jordan:-"Yes, it is very unconstitutional. It seems to me the very essence of this thing is that the action was illegal. The very essence of our complaint is, that over and over, and hover again it has been illegal, and there is no redress, because the very attempts we make to secure redress are suppressed. We cannot get a hearing. The body and substance of our report was to the Convention. 'Gentlemen, your action has been illegal and in defiance of the principles of your Constitution, as well as the Constitution of the Church.' Even admitting that they might have acted equitably according to spiritual principles, they acted wrongly under their own law, and it was illegal, because they violated the law of the Church. It was illegal because they violated the compact under which they were living, and when we presented that to them in plain language they rejected our presentation; they would not listen to our indictment; the substance of the case is, it has been an illegal action all slung."
The Bishop:-"Our charge is that they have violated the compromise, that this Constitution of the Convention is a compromise, and they have violated that compromise and thus acted in bad faith, and that we cannot continue in the compact which is violated or broken at every step, according to the will or wilfullness of men; that is the point in the case."
Mr. McCandless:-"I confessed my ignorance when I commenced speaking of the facts of the case, but I expressed my views as far as the information I received from this meeting, and, of course, I was not fully advised of the cause."
CONVENTION'S CONSTITUTION A COMPROMISE.
The Bishop:-"That is the point, if you will consider a little; that is just where we stand, that the Convention Constitution is a compromise made between the whole body itself and the constituent parts. I was a party myself to the preparation of that compromise, and it has intentionally made. We saw clearly that it was not possible for these parts to remain bound together in one body, unless certain things held by the different parts of the whole were kept in abeyance and were not brought forward, and these very things kept in abeyance are these very things that they claim as their right to impose upon us, and we claim that they have no right to impose those things upon us. It is an action against imposition; we desire to be free from any further imposition. When they find their Convention will not carry out their wishes they invent a 'spirit' to take the place of the actual body of the Constitution, and keep it bottled up for special purposes."
Mr. Whitehead:-"It has been said that the meetings vary in different parts of the country, and, possibly, if a meeting took place in other parts of the country we would get more justice than in Chicago, but I think you will find perhaps that when we meet in Chicago or West, there is more chance of getting justice than any other place. Our experience has been that year after year we have been heading a sort of forlorn hope that something could be done toward order in the Church by going to Conventions year after year; I have advocated that, as you all know. Our experience in Boston, in Detroit, in Washington, and Chicago, representing all the different parts of our country and in Philadelphia and in New York has been that there was a continual rejection and violation of the Constitution. What I hope can we have by running our heads against the wall once more? I was of the opinion that we had better try once more to see if we could not do something, but I am fully convinced that it will result as in the past, and that we would simply hurt ourselves by the operation."
Rev. N. D. Pendleton:-"Bishop, you said you were a party to the preparation of that compromise. I wish simply to say that you were not the only one that acknowledged that it was compromise-they acknowledge it."
The Bishop:-"They acknowledge it, and Mr. Warren has acknowledged it, a gentleman who was on the committee with me."
Mr. Pendleton:-"It was acknowledged it was a compromise, and a resolution to change the Constitution of the Convention was attempted to be withdrawn, on the ground that it was a compromise. So it is a settled fact that it is acknowledged by all to be a compromise. That is an important fact in our dealing with this matter to know that it is not merely a claim on our part that it is a compromise, but that it is acknowledged by others, by all members, that it is a compromise."
[Note.-It is alleged in the Report of the Council of Ministers presented at Chicago.]
HISTORY OF THE OPERATION OF THE COMPROMISE.
The Bishop:-"In connection with that I should like to answer a question asked yesterday which will illustrate the point of compromise." The Bishop here introduced the clause in Section 5 of the Constitution of the Convention. "It will be recollected by the members of this body that some years ago one of our young men was sent out to Chicago to take charge of a German Society that was willing to receive him as a teacher. After ordination he was placed under the supervision of the Rev. W. F. Pendleton, pastor in Chicago, our rule being that young ministers should be placed under the supervision of older men, in order that they might have the benefit of their experience, and learn the duties of their office as they went along. Instead of acknowledging, as he should have done, this superintendence of Mr. Pendleton, he took a directly opposite course, and manifested a spirit of unwillingness to be led and guided in the performance of the duties of his office, and when reproved, showed a disposition of impertinence which was intolerable. This grew to be so bad that we took the case in hand, and after consultation he was suspended from any further performance of the functions of his office in connection with our body. This suspension was reported to the Convention in my report as General Pastor, and without any further investigation or consideration of the subject, the Convention took it up and at once referred that to the Council of Ministers for investigation, as to whether or not that was right. They said, 'We do not know anything about this suspension.' It was investigated by the Council of Ministers, and they could not come to any agreement. The fact is it was a very extraordinary investigation. I have the correspondence on the subject which I preserved as a literary and theological curiosity. The sub-committee that was appointed to look into the matter, consisting of Messrs. Giles, Pettee, and Dike, three of the General Pastors, could come to no conclusion, and when the General Council met could make no report, and called upon me to make a report. I declined to make a report for them. The whole question was then discussed, and we took pretty nearly a whole day to go over the ground, and found that the Constitution of the Convention was so badly worded that the subject as to a suspension and as to who had the final disposition of a suspension was uncertain-entirely uncertain. We agreed in that. I confess I agreed with the party on the other side that we could not act under the Constitution, and that being the fact of the case, it was agreed among us that the whole clause or whole section should be referred to another committee to be considered and amended, and reported at the next meeting. And we did consider it, and we considered it very thoroughly, and in the meeting of the sub-committee it was urged that the Convention ought to have control of the suspensions. The old Constitution provided that Convention could take control on an appeal of a party suspended.
28
"In the case referred to, it had undertaken to do it without appeal, the party suspended not having appealed, though the Chairman of the sub- Committee declared that he had, and I discovered afterward that the appeal was a private one, that the Chairman had written to the party asking him whether he had appealed, and the party seeing a chance to do something, appealed then, whereupon the Chairman undertook to do what the Convention alone could do, to accept an appeal from the party and to act on it. Thus the subject was not before the Convention, or the Council, or the sub- Committee in an orderly way. In reconsidering the matter in the Committee that was appointed for that purpose, I agreed to their proposition, that suspensions should be made subject to the action of the Convention. I agreed fully, and I wrote out the section as you will now find it in the Constitution of the Convention. The greater part of it-the first part of the section-I wrote out myself and then had it in the subcommittee, and they all agreed to it except that I finally insisted on this: 'You cannot deprive Societies of the Church of any means of maintaining order in their body by the final act of suspending a minister who is disorderly and makes disturbance.' But as we had agreed that suspensions should be subjected to the Convention, that was ruled out, and I was asked, 'What would you do in such a case as that.' 'I should act by injunction,' I said. Mr. Worcester, who was the Vice-President of the Convention, took his pen and wrote the final clause. You will find it in Section 5, page 148. 'This section shall not be so construed as to prevent an Association from enjoining a Minister from the exercise of his functions within its own limits.'
"Under this provision of the Constitution of the Convention, the General Church enjoined another minister. But when we came to report the injunction and appealed to that clause in the Constitution; our claiming of the protection of that clause in the Constitution was ruled out by the Chairman who had written it and had offered it, and had reported it to the Convention himself.
"What do you say now as to the good faith of the members of that body? Here was the very man who had taken his pen in his hand and written that clause; who ruled out our claim that we were acting under the Constitution. And when the appeal was made from his ruling, actually went so far as to close up the appeal by putting the question that was before the meeting, and closing the mouth of the party making the appeal. We were not heard and not allowed to speak on the question. I was on the point of stating to the Convention precisely what I stated to you. He knew what was coming and did not want to have it, no doubt; I state that as my private opinion. I wish to have this on record as an historical fact, to illustrate the manner in which the Constitution has been treated by the members of that body and by its officials, and the manner in which the compromise was violated in respect to ourselves when action of the Convention was required. These are the simple historical facts. Others might be stated in other connections. It is necessary to understand these things in order to understand the position of our body. If we are to be in connection with another body, and we have a compact with this other body, this compact must be held inviolable by the other body, or we will say, 'We will have nothing to do with you.' That is what any man present would do in any business transaction. He would not allow another party to violate the compact and still hold him bound to it. It is plain common sense, plain right, and plain justice, nothing more or less. We claim that, and we claim that it is our duty as believers in order, not only in the Church but in natural order, and in the natural order of natural law, as well as the spiritual order of spiritual law, it is our duty to hold to that and maintain it and carry it out. I for one will not, brethren, continue in this position."
Mr. Whitehead:-"I was a member of that Committee, but through some delay in coming to New York, I was not present at the meeting of which the Bishop speaks, where this injunction clause was inserted. I was at a subsequent meeting at which the Bishop was not present. This amendment was finally passed before it went to the Convention, and when it was read over it struck me as not in accordance with the principles of order taught in the Writings, that there should be a supervision by a superior tribunal. Before I could object to it on a matter of principle of doctrine, that it wasn't according to order-according to the order of the principles of the Writings, Mr. Worcester stated that he believed the same thing, but it had been put there at the request of the Bishop."
The Bishop:-"Which Mr. Worcester was it?"
Mr. Whitehead:-"Mr. John Worcester stated in the Committee that it had been put there at the request of the Bishop, or Mr. Benade, as he called him. So it passed, and after the meeting I met the Bishop at the hotel and brought the subject up there, that I could not see that that was according to the principles of order that were understood to be taught in the Writings. He said: 'I do not think so either, but it is the best that we can do under the circumstances. They will not put in what is right, so we must do the next best thing.' So it was a compromise. I have understood since, although this may not be correct, that Mr. Worcester has given an intimation that that was simply allowed to pass to give the General Church more rope, as it were, to hang itself."
AS TO MAJORITIES.
Mr. Price:-"I have not spoken about this, and simply, speak to go on record. I am fully in favor of the separation, and am strongly desirous that it shall come now. I propose individually,-whether the Church goes or not, to follow my bishop, and go now out of she Convention. But I just wanted to speak to one point that was made by the speaker concerning majorities. I did not understand the speaker referred to, to say that majorities were always wrong. I do not conceive that that is true. I think that a majority or a minority is right or wrong according to the principles they hold, and upon which they act. Now, if the majority hold correct principles then they are right; if a minority hold the correct principles they are right. That is a question that can be decided from the principles of the Church, there is no other source from which it can be decided. The Doctrines of the Church have been quoted fully and at great length; the principles have been told that make the right or wrong in any action. Nevertheless, I do not believe that right or wrong, the majority rule is the correct one."
Mr. Acton:-"If we follow your advice, and signify our willingness to withdraw from the Convention individually, the passing of the resolution will not involve any majority."
The Bishop:-"Not at all."
THE CONSTITUTION VIOLATED.
Mr. W. C. Childs:-"I only want to make clear that those opposed to the resolution should fully understand that this is not a mere charge, but here is the very proof on the minutes of the Convention of a case where the ruling officer of the Convention went against a provision of the Constitution which is in force to this day. How can we go to that body and expect justice if they can deliberately act in such a way? In Convention the General Church was assailed for having a certain minister enjoined. Bringing that before the Convention was opposed by us, upon the ground that under the Constitution such an enjoining was expressly provided for. Then the President of the Convention failed in his duty. He might have said, 'I feel very sorry for this, but what can I do? I cannot bring this before the Convention at all, my hands are bound by the Constitution.' He did not allow his hands to be bound by the Constitution and in this act of injustice he was sustained by the majority. I say, why should we remain with a Convention that cannot respect its own laws? We should not."
Mr. McCandless:-"Because the Chairman violated the Constitution it does not follow that he was right, or the Convention was right; he never did what was absolutely unjust in the matter. I say this on Mr. Childs's statement here."
The Bishop:-"He did what was contrary to the Constitution, and was sustained by the vote of the body."
Mr. W. C. Childs:-"And also the next time he was still sustained."
The Bishop:-"What I stated was in order to meet the supposition that perhaps he was ignorant of this fact, and I stated these things to show that he could not possibly have been ignorant of the fact. Besides, he admitted the statement that an injunction and suspension were precisely the same thing. Mr. Scammon made the ex cathedra statement that there was no difference, and that an injunction came as much under the authority of a Convention as a suspension did. That was admitted and not corrected by the Chair, and he knew better."
Mr. Whitehead:-"I remember distinctly now where the remark to which I referred was made. The amendment to the Constitution offered by me, providing for a tribunal to try such cases was referred to a Committee consisting of Mr. John Worcester, Mr. Tafel, and myself; and it was in that Committee that he stated that this clause of injunction should be permitted to go through and give the General Church a chance to see where it would go to."
A voice:-"Who?"
Mr. Whitehead:-"Mr. John Worcester, he was in that committee after his ruling concerning that matter."
The resolution was now read by the Secretary and put to a vote.
29
THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED.
The resolution was adopted by a rising vote. Yeas, 36; Nays, 2.
The Bishop:-"The resolution has been carried by a vote of at least if not more than three-fourths."
SUNDRY PROCEEDINGS.
As this body of the LORD'S New Church had by the adoption of this resolution, entered into a new state, and assumed an independent position among the General, Churches of the New Church, it was recognized as proper and fitting to adopt a new name expressive of a new quality. Some consideration was given to this and finally the question was referred to the Councils, with authority to adopt a name, or, at their direction, to report one for consideration at the next meeting of this body.
Church of the Advent, in Philadelphia, invited the General Church to hold the next General Meeting in that city. A Chicago member intimated that the Immanuel Church would probably desire that meeting to be held in his city. The time and place of the next General Meeting was referred to the Councils, who, it may be of interest to the members to know, have thus decided on the time, namely, the latter part of June.
The discontinuance of the names of the Delaware County Society and the Concordia Circle upon the records of the General Church was referred to the
Council of the Clergy.
Dr. G. R. Starkey resigned from the post of Secretary of the Council of the Laity, and Mr. Reuben Walker was appointed in his stead.
On motion of Mr. Means, the subject of the Photo-Lithographing of the Manuscripts was discussed.
PHOTO-LITHOGRAPHING THE MANUSCRIPTS.
Mr. Means:-"It is the earnest desire of a number of the Newchurchmen in this body who have contributed to this use to have the matter progress. I believe there have been three or four contributions already amounts paid out at different times according to ability, an those making them have also expressed their desire to contribute further sums. The only thing which caused them any hesitation in giving it was the action of the Convention in practically refusing to listen to the report of the Chairman of the Committee at the session held in Washington. Know that action, and the neglect to do anything on the part of the General Convention, has caused members to hold back. They do not know whether the use is going to be performed or not, they do not want to give money to an object and have it lie idle. If the use is going to be performed let it be done, and if it is to be only partially performed, perform the more important part in the hands of those appointed to do the work. The manuscripts seem to be most important."
The Bishop:-"I can state this, that the Chairman of the Committee on Manuscripts is now the late Chairman. He has resigned from that Committee on the ground of the non-action of the Convention, and want of sympathy with the movement, and he does not believe that the Convention will do anything in the matter. If anything is done it will have to be done by this body or another body of the Church. There is only one obstacle in the way of taking it up that I know of, and that is a very great obstacle-the want of money. If the gentleman can show how we can get fifty thousand dollars for this purpose I think I can show him how the matter will be taken in hand and carried through. The Royal Academy of Sciences in Stockholm which proffered us the use of the manuscripts, and certain men would see that the work would be done cheaply. Some have made their terms of the cost, and according to those terms I judge we should have thirty thousand dollars to begin the work, but it could be carried through for a great deal less money than is generally supposed. I doubt not that arrangements could be made to our advantage with one of the competing parties. There are three establishments in Stockholm perfectly competent to do the work. I think we have some gentlemen who are ready to undertake the editing, if we have money enough to defray the expenses, that is the only obstacle in the way. It will not be undertaken by the Convention at the present time, as the Convention is situated and as it is disposed. I have no idea that they would enter into it, but if this body has the means it can do so, or possibly the Academy may do it. So that Mr. Means is at liberty to suggest means."
Mr. Means:-"It is with pleasure that I will do so. The means, as you perhaps have learned, in the New Church, in this body, have been increased of late, and are to be increased still more-I mean financially. In order to bring the subject properly before this meeting, I present the following motion:
"'That this body, resolve to go forward with this work according to its ability; that we invite the cooperation of all Newchurchmen throughout the world who are in sympathy with this use; that we invite their co-operation at once, that we do it through our Journal, and that we send it broadcast, and let every Newchurchman respond to the Secretary of this General Church.' I do not think the Convention will retain the money contributed for this purpose, but hand it over immediately. If we go ahead we shall have six thousand dollars to begin with, the LORD will provide the balance; let us go forward with the six thousand dollars."
The motion was seconded.
The Bishop:-"By the suggestion of parties connected with the photo-lithographing establishments, the work could be done in such a way that it would necessitate our paying only a small amount now. They have proposed photo-lithographing a single volume at a time, and when that is completed to make a contract for a new volume to be designated by us. There are manuscripts that ought to be photo-lithographed now. The Secretary of the Royal Academy of Sciences has informed me that the condition of some of the manuscripts is such that we could not, at the present time, in all probability get a good copy, as the paper has been corroded by the ink and the action of time. You recollect [to Mr. Price] that we noticed that some of them were not in very good condition; it is difficult to photo-lithograph them. But suppose we took one of the smaller manuscripts, or parts of the larger ones that are important, which contain theological treatises, which were never published, and publish those, and continue in that way by taking part by part, we might collect money enough to go on. The sale of the parts so published would help to provide the means for other parts. In the meantime, if the work were going on, I have no doubt that would constitute a plane for influx from the other world, inducing persons to come forward and share in this work and contribute. That is always the case. If you want money for anything, begin to do it, and if we want money for this let us begin to do it, and the money will come in a way we may not know of now. We must show our trust in the LORD ourselves, and our belief in the importance and great use of the work. There is nothing that can be presented to us of greater importance than the preservation of these invaluable manuscripts in a form to be of use, for the future edition of the Writings. Doctor Worcester has informed me that he has anticipated his removal to the other world by doing a great deal of work on some of the Writings, and getting them ready for the printers. Unfortunately he had not the manuscripts for those writings. He ought to have them in hand now. He has prepared the work on Heaven and Hell for the printer. If we could find the original of that and have it photo-lithographed we could supplement his work by putting it in the hands of new editors and thus have a more complete and perfect edition of Heaven and Hell which is so much needed at the present time. There are others that could be dealt with in the same way. In going over the manuscripts I found in those brief theological treatises which are scattered through them, matters of the greatest and gravest importance, which we need to have. By adopting such a procedure as that, directing the publication of single volumes at a time, I think we could be successful in having all of them photo-lithographed. It would not require any large expenditure of money at any given time, and the coming out of the volumes would tend to open the pockets of every one having the matter at heart."
Mr. Roy:-"I should like to ask what can be done with the manuscripts which you have just described as having been damaged through the corrosion of the ink and the action of time upon the paper?"
The Bishop:-"They can be copied as they are."
Mr. Price:-"I have been asked to say what I know about the manuscripts.
30
I was in company with the Bishop in Stockholm during the summer or part of the summer of 1888, during which time we examined and counted the pages of all the manuscripts at that time lying in the Royal Academy of Sciences, in Stockholm, and I noticed also, as the Bishop has said, that several of the manuscripts have become very illegible, but I do not think that any one of them is altogether illegible. I think that a good and careful editor, with time and patience, can decipher any of the manuscripts existing there at the present time, but I do not know how long they will remain as good as they are at present, and they certainly, many of them, are not very good at present."
The Bishop:-"They become moist, by reason of the climate."
Mr. Price:-"The climate is moist, and that has a tendency to affect papers as every one knows. The thing most to be regarded is that time manuscripts written last-theological manuscripts-are in the worst condition, because as Swedenborg grew older his hand became more cramped and obscure, the lines of his writing were very much crowded together at best, and after the spreading of the ink it has made pretty bad blots in some places. The older ones, which he wrote when younger and with a firm hand, are still quite legible. All manuscripts that I could decide as being scientific, that I examined at least, are quite legible. There are some that have evidently been the first draughts, which as the printers draught was made, were crossed off and they have pen marks, sometimes through the lines and sometimes through the page. It seems that in most cases those manuscripts that have been erased, if you may say so, by this pen stroke, exist only in that form, the clean copy made for the printer, in most cases as far as I could find does not now exist. It seems therefore important that even those erased copies should be photo-lithographed and preserved, as they may be, in the Divine Providence, the only ones we have. It is important to preserve in this form, in the very handwriting of the servant of the LORD, the works that he was commanded to write. There is no other check upon any editor or printer than the original manuscript.
"The means of reproducing the manuscripts has been much dwelt upon, and the importance of the work as been recognized by the people of this Church, and it is not necessary to talk about that any more."
Mr. Means:-"If the manuscripts which, are in danger from the climate, cannot be photo-lithographed at once they might be preserved by proper application. The Academy of Sciences, where they are now kept, might furnish them with an air tight receptacle, pump the air out, and almost create a vacuum and then the moisture would not affect them."
Mr. Odhner:-"The preservation of the manuscripts is of immediate importance. It is not the climate that is consuming the manuscripts according to my idea, probably it is because we have been talking about this subject for years. The Bishop has shown to the Church the importance of this work, and year after year the work has been delayed. I wish to call attention to the fact that if anything is to be done it is to be done now. If the General Church intends to do anything in the matter it should begin to make preparations."
Mr. Pitcairn.-"I should hesitate to adopt a resolution deciding to do a certain thing that we are not prepared to do."
Mr. Means:-"We would be able to commence with the photo-lithographing of certain small manuscripts, or short manuscripts, and by going on in that way step by step we may accomplish the whole work."
Mr. Pitcairn.-"I should still object to going into the matter unprepared."
Mr. Pitcairn moved "That this body recognizes the great importance of the work of photo-lithographing the manuscripts, and that the question be referred to the Council of the Clergy and the Council of the Laity."
The motion was duly seconded and carried.
SUNDRY PROCEEDINGS.
The Secretary:-"I move that we adopt as a standing rule that the Offertory at the Sunday worship of the Church, at its annual meeting, be for the maintenance of the Bishop's office."
The motion was duly seconded and carried.
Bishop Benade announced the appointment of Dr. G. R. Starkey as a member of the Council of the Laity. The nomination was duly accepted and confirmed.
Mr. Schreck called attention to a historical fact, that by the action taken at this meeting, the most important one since the reorganization of the body, it had returned to the form of organization which was first presented. The clause in the organization which was expunged by resolution of this meeting was not in the Instrument of Organization as originally presented by the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Pennsylvania Association. That was done in the year 1883, seven years ago, which concludes a period, a period which gives promise of a holy state in the future, for seven signifies what is holy, and holiness is predicated of truth. A state of the Church now begins which we hope will demonstrate more clearly than anything else to the eyes of men on earth that the Divine Truth is being received more fully and that the LORD has given it to us for the benefit of mankind on earth and for the closer conjunction of earth with heaven."
Mr. Pitcairn moved that Article 3 of the Canons, to wit: "When a vacancy occurs in the office of Bishop of this Church, the same shall be filled by nomination made by the Ecclesiastical Council and confirmed by act of this Church in general meeting assembled, and, after confirmation, the name of the Pastor selected for the office of Bishop shall be presented to the General Convention for the sanction of the same, and for his consecration to the office," be expunged, and the subject of a substitute be referred to the Council of the Clergy.
The motion was duly seconded and carried.
Mr. Pitcairn also moved: "That the Instrument of Organization of this Church be referred to the Council of the Clergy, that it may be made to conform with the present state of this General Church."
The motion was duly seconded and adopted.
THE FOURTH DAY.
The LORD'S Day, November 16th.
WORSHIP was conducted by Bishop Pendleton assisted by Pastors Eugene J. E. Schreck and A. Czerny. A new feature of the service was the reading of the Internal Sense of the responses by the Priest and the reading or singing of the Literal Sense by the Congregation. The sermon was preached by Mr. Schreck.
The Holy Supper was then celebrated, during which Bishop Pendleton remained at the altar and the assistants distributed the elements to the people.
There were present at the worship one hundred and seventy-six persons, of whom one hundred and four partook of the Holy Supper.