UNITY
IN THE
NEW CHURCH

An address delivered before the Seventh General Assembly
of
the General Church of the New Jerusalem

by

William F. Pendleton

Bishop of the General Church
June 15, 1910

     Unity is something that every sincere lover of the church will never cease to desire that which is the cause of unity. This cause is charity, and all unity that does not have charity as its spring is unity in appearance, but not in reality.

    By the New Church we mean the church as existing wherever there is a heart acknowledgment, and an open confession in faith and practice, of the two universal essentials of salvation, namely, the acknowledgment of one God our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and repentance of life according to the precepts of the Decalogue. (A. R. 491, 500, 529, 876) The New Church is where these two universals are, and with all those who are in them there is essential unity of spirit; and that there is to be in time actual organic unity of some kind is clearly indicated in the Heavenly Doctrine.

     There was such unity in the Ancient Church, because, as we read, the men of that church were in charity; even though there was variety in doctrine or in the understanding of the word. "Love to the Lord and charity towards the neighbor are that on which hangs all the law, and concerning which all the prophets speak, and thus they are the essentials of all doctrine and worship. . . . Such was the Ancient Church. . . . Doctrinals and rituals differed with them, but still the church was one, because charity was essential in all; and then the Lord's kingdom was in the earths as in the heavens, for such is heaven. . . . Then everyone would say of another, in whatever doctrine, and in whatever external worship he might be, this is my brother, I see that he worships the Lord, and that he is a good man." (A. C. 2385)

     It is also said in the same number, that if love to the Lord and charity towards the neighbor should prevail, as in the Ancient Church, "heresies would be dissipated, and out of many there would be formed one church," because the mind of the church would be in illustration from the Lord, even though men might still differ in application to the uses of life. "For it is thus with the churches of the Lord;-in ancient times there were several together and a difference between them as at this day in regard to doctrinals, but still they made one in this, that they acknowledged love to the Lord, and charity to the neighbor, as the principal and the very essential itself, and thus that doctrinals were not to teach them so to think, but so to live; and when to all and each, love of the Lord and charity towards the neighbor, that is the good of life, is the essential, then churches how many soever they are, make one, and each is one in the kingdom of the Lord." (A. C. 2982) "The Ancient Church . . . was spread through much of the Asiatic world, and through several kingdoms there; and although they differed as to doctrinals of faith, still there was one church, because all in every part of it made charity the essential of the church." (A. C. 4680) "The doctrine of charity was the doctrine in the Ancient Churches, and that doctrine conjoined all churches, and of several made one church, for they acknowledged as men of the church, all those who lived in the good of charity, and they called them brethren, howsoever they might differ as to truths, which at this day are called the truths of faith. In these truths one instructed another, which instruction was amongst their works of charity; neither were they indignant if one did not accede to the opinion of another, knowing that every one receives truth in the degree that he is in good." (A. C. 6628) They differed in the understanding of doctrine, and also in the rituals of worship; and they instructed one another in the truths of the Word according to their understanding of it, but they were not angry when their instruction was not seen or received.

     There might have been such unity in the Christian Church, if charity had prevailed in it. This was the case to some extent in the beginning, but essential unity disappeared, when charity departed from that church. We read that "When a church is raised up by the Lord it is in the beginning pure, and then one loves another as a brother; as is known from the primitive Christian Church after the Lord's coming. All the sons of the church at that time lived with each other as brethren, and also called each other brethren, and mutually loved one another; but in process of time charity diminished, and vanished away; and as charity vanished evils succeeded, and with evils falses also insinuated themselves, whence arose schisms and heresies. These would never have existed, if charity had continued to live and rule; for then they would not have called schism schism, nor heresy heresy, but they would have called them doctrinals according to one's opinion, which they would have left to every one's conscience, providing they did not deny principles, that is, the Lord, eternal life, and the Word, and maintained nothing contrary to divine order, that is, contrary to the commandments of the Decalogue." (A. C. 1834) Schisms and heresies arose as charity departed from the church. They would not have come into existence if charity had continued to live and rule. The fallacies which lead to them would doubtless have existed with some; for fallacies do exist in early states, or with the young and with the simple. But if charity had prevailed, fallacies would not have become the falsities of evil in the church; for there would have been no love of dominion or love of the world to seize upon them as the instrument of disturbance and oppression. Men would have presented their views and opinions, their understanding of the Word, in the form of instruction; but there would have been no wish or desire to disturb another in his faith, especially if fundamentals were not denied, and charity was seen to exist in a life according to the teachings of Revelation.

     In Arcana Coelestia n. 1799 the same thing is more fully shown, wherein we are taught that doctrine alone does not make the church, but a life according to doctrine, since the purpose in all doctrine is to teach men how to live. "The churches in the Christian world are distinguished by their doctrinals, and they hence call themselves Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, or the Reformed and Evangelical Protestants; with many others. This distinction of names arises solely from doctrinals, and would never have had place if they had made love to the Lord, and charity towards the neighbor, the principal of faith. Doctrinals would then be only varieties of opinion concerning the mysteries of faith, which true Christians would leave to every one according to his conscience, and would say in heart, that he is a true Christian who lives as a Christian, or as the Lord teaches. Thus one church would be formed out of all these diverse ones, and all disagreements arising from mere doctrinals would vanish, yea, all the hatreds of one against another would be dissipated in a moment, and the kingdom of the Lord would be established on the earth."

     False doctrines or fallacies of appearance are, therefore, relatively harmless, when held by those who are in innocence and charity, as with children, or with a man who is well-disposed and kindly in heart, who is not jealous, suspicious, revengeful, malignant, and who is not filled with the spirit of domination or blinded by self-conceit. It is the existence and activity of these evils, and thus the absence of charity, not false doctrine as such, not false doctrine innocently and sincerely believed, that are the cause of dissension, schism, and heresy. We read that, "At this day men predicate the church from the mere doctrinals of faith, and from these they distinguish the churches of the Lord, not caring of what life men are, even though they cherish intestine hatred, tear each other to pieces like wild beasts, rob and plunder each other of reputation, of honor, and wealth, and deny in heart whatever is sacred; when, nevertheless, the church can never exist with such, but with those who love the Lord, and their neighbor as themselves, who have conscience, and who hold in aversion the hatreds above mentioned. The latter, however, are amongst the former like strangers, being scoffed and persecuted by them to the utmost of their power and being regarded as simple, vile, and contemptible." (A. C. 1844) "Charity has so disappeared, at this day, that it is scarcely known by any one what it is, consequently also faith has disappeared, for one without the other is not given. If charity were in the first place, and faith in the second, the church would have another face, for then none would be called Christians but they who lived a life according to the truth of faith, that is, the life of charity; and also it would then be known what charity is. Then, too, there would not be made several churches, by distinguishing between them according to opinions concerning the truths of faith; but the church would be called one, containing all who are in the good. . . The church thus would be in illustration concerning such things as are of the Lord's kingdom, for charity illustrates, and in no case faith without charity." (A. C. 6269) "A difference in doctrinals of faith does not effect but that there may be one church, provided only there be unanimity as to willing well, and doing well; as, for example, if any one acknowledge for a doctrinal that charity is from faith, and he lives in charity towards the neighbor, then indeed he is not in truth as to doctrine, but still he is in the truth as to life, consequently there is in him the church or kingdom of the Lord." (A. C. 3451) See also 1285, 5962, 9002.

     Now although there is variety in the understanding of the Word, as indicated in the numbers we have quoted, still there is unity in variety, and not diversity, if there is charity, if charity and love to the Lord reign in the church. That this is true even in a spiritual church, true in heaven itself, is clearly shown in the Writings in many passages. "All who are in good are in the Lord's kingdom, and yet no two societies therein are in like good, nor even one in a society is in like good as another. For one and the same good with two persons can never be given, still less in several, for then they would be one and the same, and not two, still less several. Every one (thing) consists of varieties, and this by celestial harmony and concord." (A. C. 4263)  "The Lord's spiritual kingdom itself in the heavens is also such, viz., various as to those things which are of faith, insomuch that there is not one society, nor even one in a society, who in those things which are of the truth of faith is entirely agreed with others as to his ideas, n. 3241; nevertheless, the Lord's spiritual kingdom in the heavens is one; the reason is, because all account charity as principal, for charity makes the spiritual church, and not faith." (A. C. 3267)  "The angelic heaven is in infinite variety; there is not given an individual there absolutely like another; . . .and still, although there are myriads of myriads, they are arranged by the Lord into one form, in which is plenary unanimity and concord; which could not be given, unless they all so various were universally and particularly led by One; these things are what we here mean by varieties. But by diversities we mean the opposites of those varieties, which are given in hell."  (C. L. 324)

     Thus where charity is, there is variety; but where charity is not, there is diversity, the opposite of variety, the variety of hell. Among the churches of the Christian world, there is not variety but diversity, because of the absence of charity, because charity, though present with some, does not dominate and prevail. The New Church in its beginning partakes of this state of the Christian world; but the time is to come when charity will prevail, and then there will no longer be diversity, but variety like that in heaven. For we read that the seven candlesticks and the seven churches "signify the New Church on earth, which is the New Jerusalem coming down from the Lord out of the New Heaven. By the seven candlesticks are not meant seven churches, but the church in the whole complex, which is in itself one, but various according to reception. Those varieties may be compared to the various jewels in a king's crown; and they may also be compared to the various members and organs in a perfect body, which still make one. The perfection of every form exists from various things suitably arranged in their order. It is hence that the universal New Church with its varieties is described by the seven church in what now follows." (A. R. 66, 73)

     These numbers indicate clearly that there will be in the New Church variety in the understanding of doctrine, in the standards of a religious life, in the forms of worship, and in the uses of the church; and that these varieties are not only not to be regretted, but they even contribute to real harmony and perfection of the form, when there is mutual charity. For "All oneness is formed from the harmony of many things united, and according to the harmony' such is the oneness; and it is impossible for any absolute oneness to subsist, but only a oneness resulting from the harmony of variety: thus every society in the heavens forms a one; and all the societies taken collectively, or the universal heaven, form a one; and this from the Lord alone by means of love." (A. C. 457) "Heaven also is wherever the Lord is acknowledged, believed, and loved. The variety of the worship of Him, from the variety of good in one society and another, does not bring harm, but it brings advantage; for from this is the perfection of heaven. . . . All oneness exists from varieties; for a one which is not from varieties is not anything; it has no form, and therefore not any quality. But when a one exists from various things, and the varieties are in a perfect form, in which each one joins itself to another in friendly agreement in a series, then it has a perfect quality. Heaven, also is a one from varieties arranged into a perfect form; for the heavenly form is the most perfect of all forms."  (H. H. 56; A. C. 3241; L. J. 12)

     The form of the church on earth is to correspond with the form of heaven, for the church is the heaven of the Lord with men. (A. C. 10131) Since therefore the form of heaven is a form of unity in variety, with the harmony resulting therefrom; it follows that this is to be the form of the New Church, as we have already seen in the teaching that "the New Church in itself is one, but various, according to reception."

     There is to be variety in the reception of doctrine, variety in the understanding of it, variety in the application of doctrine to life. But this variety will be a variety in which there is harmony, when the reigning principle is charity. Since charity therefore is the very life blood of the church, without which there is no church as yet with men, it becomes a matter of supreme importance to know what charity is; for a permanent misunderstanding of charity will be fatal to the unity of the church--fatal even to its existence.

     In the new light that is given to the New Church, there is a new understanding of the meaning of terms, and in this light we find that the popular conception of charity does not convey to the mind what charity is in a spiritual idea of it. It is indeed "unknown at this day what charity is." (H. D. 106, A. C. 4774) For "the doctrine of charity which was so much esteemed amongst the ancients is at this day amongst those things that are lost; for who at this day knows what charity is in the genuine sense, and what the neighbor is in the genuine sense? when yet the whole Sacred Scripture is nothing else than the doctrine of love and charity." (A. C. 6632) But we read that the true doctrine of charity is now to be restored. (A. C. 2417, 6633) For the revelation to the New Church is not only a revelation things once known to mankind, but which have been lost.

     Certain works of charity, having in view the bettering of the natural condition of men, are supposed to be charity. Natural good, amiability, loveableness of disposition, friendship, civility, the right observance of the laws of social intercourse, all thought to be charity; and they are, indeed, manifestations of charity, but still they may exist where charity is not, and with man who have no love to the Lord, no religion, no spiritual moral life. For we read that "friendship is not charity, still less is civility charity; but they are degrees beneath charity; being, however, more and more sincere, in proportion as they are more and more grounded in charity." (A. C. 1158)

     Charity is a degree above those things which are ordinarily known as charity. It is a spiritual thing. It is spiritual love. It is love to the Lord and love to the neighbor together, on which two united as one hang all the law and the prophets It is a product of the regenerate life, a product of repentance and resistance to evil as sin against God: and the works of such a charity are all the spiritual virtues, resulting from a life according to the commandments of the Decalogue, when they are kept because they are laws of religion; and, finally, it is a life of daily use performed from a spiritual origin, which origin is spiritual love such as reigns in heaven. Such a charity is now exceeding rare.

     So important is charity to the life of the church that it is much treated of in the Writings, and is defined in many different ways; but one of the most comprehensive is that which defines it to be the love of the spiritual truth of the Word or the love of what the Lord teaches in His Word. (H. H. 15, 16) For "during the process of man's regeneration, that is, of his being made a church, the first thing will be for him to know and understand what the truth of faith is; the second thing will be to will and do it; the third thing is to be affected with it; and when a man is affected with; truth, that is, when he perceives delight and blessedness in doing according to the truth, he is then in charity or mutual love." (A. C. 3876, 3877) It is thus made most clear that charity without love to the Lord, without the love of the spiritual truth of the Word, has no existence except in name.

     On account of the universally prevailing ignorance of what charity is, those who come to the New Church out of the Christian world come to it in this state of ignorance, bringing with them the common standards of thought and practice in which they were educated. These standards become the standards of the New Church for a time, in which we see reason for the teaching that the New Church in its beginning will be external. (A. E. 403) Afterwards it will become internal or spiritual, because it will come gradually into a spiritual idea of God, and at the same time into a spiritual idea of charity or love to the neighbor--first by learning what the Lord is in a spiritual idea of Him, and then by doing the things which He teaches in His opened Word. That the existence of charity, or a spiritual love of the neighbor, will be a gradual and successive thing in the New Church is plainly indicated in the numbers we have just quoted. (3876, 3877)

     Every truth of the Word looks to the Lord and to the neighbor, leads to conjunction with the Lord and consociation with the neighbor, leads to the uses that are to be done for the Lord and for the neighbor; and what a man loves he does, or is continually striving to do in his spirit. If he loves the truth of the Word, he is ever striving to live according to that truth, that is, he is ever striving to live a life of charity. This is the reason, therefore, why charity is so essential to the life of the church, this is the reason why the church is not where charity is not, because the church is not where there is no love to the Lord, no love of the Lord's teachings as given in His Word. All charity other than this is a purely natural thing, having in it no saving efficacy, no spiritual quality, no vital power. Charity, therefore, is essentially love to the Lord, it is essentially the love of truth; it is the spiritual affection of truth, signified by the woman in the Apocalypse, who gave birth to the man child which was to rule all nations with a rod of iron.

     Such charity, which is the spiritual love of truth, does not take away faith, it does not take away doctrine, it does not take away the understanding of the Word, nor illustration, nor spiritual intelligence, but makes them, creates them, expands and enlarges them, strengthens and confirms them. It is a spiritual fire that kindles a light in the mind, a light that ever shines brighter according to the degree or presence of the love which is charity, and causes an ever clearer seeing of the spiritual things of the Word; and there is no spiritual illustration, no interior understanding of the Word, no church, without it. For since charity is the love of truth, it is the love of understanding it, and at the same time the love of living according to it; and the love of living according to the truth is the actual love of the neighbor, and is at the same time the actual love of God.

     Charity, therefore, as an essential of the church, is not merely a principle of confession or faith, but a principle of life. Charity in the life of the church is what brought unity and harmony in the varieties of the Ancient Church; it is the same that would have brought unity and harmony into the Christian churches, had it continued to exist and grow in them; and it is charity in actual practice and life, and nothing else, that is to bring spiritual unity among the varieties of the New Church, whenever the day comes when charity shall be not only in the faith of the church, but in its life. We read, therefore, in the Divine Providence, n. 259, that "there are three essentials of the church, the acknowledgment of the Divinity of the Lord, the acknowledgment of the holiness of the Word, and the life which is called charity. According to the life, which is charity, every one has faith; from the Word he has a knowledge of what life ought to be, and from the Lord is reformation and salvation. If these three had been held as the essentials of the church, intellectual dissensions would not have divided it, but only have varied it; as the light varies colors in beautiful objects, and as a variety of jewels makes the beauty of a king's crown."

     Charity is mentioned in this number as the third essential of the church. The first is the acknowledgment of the Divinity of the Lord, the second is the acknowledgment of the holiness of the Word, the third is the life of charity. For charity is from the Lord by the truth of the Word, and it is the means by which the Lord, through the Word, unites men and churches as by a common bond. It is thus not the profession of charity but the life of charity that makes this common bond.

     Charity does not come by formulating laws, by passing resolutions, by making declarations of faith, but by a gradual and successive growth in obedience to the truths of the Word. It does not come by saying there ought to be charity, especially if this be said in a spirit of accusation. Charity is inspired by a spirit of instruction, but not by a spirit of accusation. Instruction in the truth of the Word from charity begets charity. This is what is meant by the command of the Lord to His disciples to cast the net on the right side of the ship. They were to teach from the love of saving souls, and not from a spirit of searching out evils for the sake of accusation. For "it is not angelic to enquire into the evils with man, unless the goods be enquired into at the same time." (A. C. 10381) To teach from the love of saving souls is, therefore, to teach from charity. This is casting the net on the right side of the ship.

     If a man be in charity himself, he will not be in a spirit of accusation of others for the lack of it. If he accuses, it will be for defense and not for attack. He may speak from indignation and zeal in defence of the truth, when it is assailed, but there will be in his defence no personality or impatience; no bitterness of feeling. If he be in charity he will be in the love of truth, and he will be in the love of defending the truth; for every man defends that which he holds dear, and he is ready even to sacrifice his life for it. There is nothing so dear to the spiritual man as the truth of the Word. What the Lord teaches in His Word is loved more than all the world beside. It is when charity is thus not merely a principle of faith and profession, but a principle of life and practice, that it may be said that the church is established.

     As in all churches, there will be: variety of opinion in the New Church, variety in understanding and in application to life of the truth of the Word, but still there will be unity and harmony if there be charity, that is, if charity be present as a spiritual principle of life, and not merely as a natural thing such as is given the name of charity in the world. Now if there are differences of opinion in respect to the truth of the church, and at the same time charity, there will be present a spirit of toleration. For charity which in heaven is mutual love begins on earth in mutual toleration. There must be a mutual toleration of differences of opinion, a mutual allowance of freedom of speech, of freedom in discussing questions which are of interest to the church. For the sake of this but little limitation should be placed upon public debate, for this not only contributes to freedom of thought and to freedom of choice, thus also to rationality, but it is most efficient means of instruction, especially when the debate is governed by a spirit of affirmation of the Writings. But even the negative spirit should be allowed liberty of expression, provided it be done in a suitable and becoming manner.

     A suppression of the freedom of speech and free discussion is worse than any abuses that may arise from the allowance of such freedom. This has been seen in the civil state, and hence the almost unlimited freedom of speech is allowed. This quality of English civil life is specially commended in the Writings. (LJ cont. 40) It is, indeed, much abused, but it is clearly seen that its suppression would lead to worse results than the permission of it.

     Such a suppression in the church would bring even more fatal results than in the state; for it would mean the loss of the liberty of the church, the loss of its rationality and thus the death of the church. We should allow freedom for the vigorous expression of one's opinion, and should not be hurt or offended by it, nor permit it to arouse a spirit of impatience in return. A great statesman once said, "A difference of opinion is no just cause for anger." (Lincoln.) And we may add that the use of language, in its form harsh, severe and uncharitable, is no just cause for resentment, retaliation, or revenge. The neighbor may be uncharitable in the free expression of his opinion, and it may present a just cause for grief or regret, but it affords no justification for returning evil for evil, or the use of repressive measures. The default of charity in others is a poor excuse for a like default in ourselves. Genuine charity carries with it strength to bear and forbear; it will listen with a spirit of patience to a free expression of opinion; knowing that in the freedom of public discussion there is furnished an outlet of expression for the various states of the life of the church, and will be one of the chief highways to ultimate harmony.

     Charity, in a large definition of it, is the love of the freedom of the neighbor, carrying with it a hope for his amendment where amendment is needed. A true man of the church will not only love his own freedom, but that of his neighbor; and we may go so far as to say that there is no genuine love of the neighbor without a love of his freedom. Nor are we to grant freedom to another, merely as a concession, merely because he demands it and will have it, but from a love of freedom itself; not from weakness, but from strength; not as a truce for the sake of peace, but because it is right; not from a negative, or because we cannot help ourselves, but from a principle affirmative to that which is the only means to salvation,--human freedom--the only means by which men are led out of hell into heaven.

     As we wish that others should have charity for us, so should we have charity for them; and as we wish for freedom for ourselves, so should we wish it for others. In fact, we do not have true freedom ourselves unless we wish it for others, as a product of our own love to the neighbor. Let us repeat, we do not love the neighbor if we do not love his freedom. To love his freedom is to wish that he may do as he pleases. We should even be willing that he should do wrong. In this we do not love his wrong, but we love his freedom, the only means by which he may be led out of his wrong; and that he may be led out of his wrong we should be willing to suffer the disturbance of his wrong, even to the limit of endurance. It is plain, therefore, that the love of another's freedom is the love of his salvation, since it is a law of Providence that no one can be saved except in freedom according to his reason. This is a fundamental principle of charity because it is an image of the Lord's love for mankind.

     A vigorous and free expression of opinion does not necessarily indicate a lack of charity. It may indeed arise from an evil cause such as hatred, self love, self conceit; or it may arise from a zeal for the truth, a zeal that has in it a love of truth for its own sake; and we have seen that a love of the spiritual truth of the Word is the inmost of charity. And it is well to remember here that charity and its opposite may take in outward form a similar appearance of zeal, and we may easily mistake the one for the other. It is far better to suffer the wrong thing than to suppress the right thing. It is certainly not wise or just to suppress an expression of honest indignation at what is really contemptible and wicked.

     Freedom of speech and free discussion, even though liable to abuse, should not be disallowed or suppressed, whether in the state or in the church; but it should be provided for under certain liberal and just regulations; and it may be truly said, that without it the New Church can never reach its appointed station as a spiritual church. For when a just occasion calls for it a fearless enunciation of the truth, regardless of consequences, is necessary to the life of the church, because necessary to preserve the integrity of the truth of Revelation.

     A difference of opinion, therefore, is not a just cause for anger nor for separation, and it will not of itself lead to separation. Men do not separate from each other merely because they differ in opinion. If there are differences, the remaining together will depend upon a mutual acknowledgment of fundamentals, a mutual good will, a mutual recognition of freedom, a mutual toleration, together with the extent of the self control the individuals who compose a body are willing to place upon themselves. No sensible man will depart from association with another on account of divergence of view, provided there be no anger or unjust treatment. It is injustice on the one hand or on the other that brings judgment or separation, and which leads to combat and war.

     A difference of opinion, however, while not a just cause for separation; does look to variety in organization and use. A variety in opinion in its best sense, a variety that is not at the same time contrariety or diversity, is but variety in the application of some general truth--some general truth in which there is agreement, but which may lead to varied application. If there be at the same time charity, a love of the neighbor's freedom, and no attempt or desire to put restrictions upon his freedom of speech or action, then variety in organization may come into existence without contravening the laws of charity. It will, in fact, enlarge the sphere of the operation of those laws. It ought to be clearly seen, therefore, that there can be variety in organization, arising from a variety in the understanding of doctrine, and variety in the conception of use,--a variety without contrariety and diversity,--a variety that will enlarge the field of charity and love to the Lord.

     A complete separation of withdrawal from all association with others is, therefore, never justified by a mere difference of opinion; nor does it ever take place from this cause alone. It can only take place, and ought only to take place, when there is a loss or threatened loss of that which is loved beyond price. When this is the case separation is necessary and may be imperatively demanded. The history of nations and churches furnishes many examples of this,--examples of both kinds, those from just cause, and those which present no just cause for such action.

     The wisdom of our action in leaving the larger body of the church in this country must be largely left to the verdict of history. We are as yet unable to see that any error was committed, and the events of the past two years tend mightily to confirm this view. But this ought not to prevent us from considering the just grounds of a union of all those who have taken upon themselves the name of the New Christian Church; nor should it prevent us from seeing that such a union is in itself desirable, to be wished for, sought for, and indeed prayed for. Any candid NEWCHURCHMANmust see, when he reflects, that such a union must be based upon a recognition of the law of unity in variety; and that variety in opinion looks to variety in use and in organization for use. The Doctrine teaches this and human experience looks in the same direction. The Heavenly Doctrine, and that doctrine confirmed in the experience of men, is alter all the only safe guide to follow.

     A proposition was made to the committee on the revision of the Constitution of the General Convention, in the year 1881, to leave the question of the priesthood to the Associations. If this proposition had been accepted, and freely carried out, the separation which followed would probably have never taken place. There does not appear to be any good reason why the proposition, then made in good faith by Bishop Benade, could not have been accepted. You will remember what a burning question this was at that time,--the question of the priesthood or ministry. There were several distinct views or opinions; but these views, while divergent, were not necessarily antagonistic. All that was necessary was a wise toleration. Toleration does not necessarily mean approval. It simply means the recognition of the neighbor's freedom to act according to his own judgment without opposition or hindrance. A wise toleration would have consisted in a free permission by the larger body, granted freely to the Associations, each to ultimate its own view of the priesthood, the Convention confining itself to certain general uses of the church, about which there was but little if any difference of opinion. The results which followed are part of the history of the church, and they are merely referred to here in order to bring into clear light the only remedy that can be successfully applied when there is a variety or divergency of opinion in respect to the doctrine or policy of the church.

     When we view the controversy that is now afflicting the New Church, there appears to be but little hope of a solution in the present generation. But when a solution does come it seems plain it must come somewhat along the lines we have been endeavoring herein to set forth,--lines indicated by doctrine and experience; and as we have said, these indications seem to point to a most general body for the performance of most general uses, on which there can be agreement, leaving questions of divergence or disagreement to less general or particular bodies. In such an arrangement there would exist a ground of union in the two grand essentials of the church, and in a common willingness that differences of opinion in respect to doctrine and policy should be freely carried out in a variety of church organizations.

     A great use to be accomplished by variety in organization is to be found in the freedom of choice it gives to the individual. For as we have seen, men do not think alike as to the application of doctrine to use, which suggests at once the need and importance of free choice. This can hardly be provided for with any effectiveness in or by one organization alone, but it may be provided for by several, each organized under a particular view of doctrine and use.

     It is unreasonable to expect that all the variety of views and opinions that exist and will continue to exist in the New Church can have full and free operation in a single organized body. Against this expectation we have arrayed the doctrine of the church, and all human experience. It is a question that it is impossible for us in our own body even to consider--the union of all in one organization. We shall never again subject our uses to the danger of hostile legislation; nor are we willing to place ourselves in a position to disturb or hinder others in any work they may wish to do. In any arrangements that might be entered into, we must continue to exercise the same freedom which we now possess. We can continue to do this and yet send delegates, and perhaps reports of our work, to a most general body performing uses which are in common. In such a body we could contribute our portion to the peace and good will of the church, and make common cause with other bodies in the evangel to the Christian world of the Second Coming of the Lord. May the Lord in His good Providence lead to this desirable event.