THE ACADEMY OF THE NEW CHURCH

BRYN ATHYN, PA.

1910

And lo! the paper on which those arcana were written was let down from Heaven; and in its progress, while it was yet in the Spiritual World, it shone as a star; but when it descended into the Natural World the light disappeared, and it was darkened in the degree that it descended. And when it was let down by the angels into companies where there were some skilled and learned clergymen and laymen, there was heard a murmur from many, in which there were words such as these: What is this? Is it anything? What does it matter if we know these things or not? Are they not abortions of the brain?

And it seemed as if some took the paper, folding it, twisting and untwisting it with their fingers, in order that they might obliterate the writing; and it seemed as if some were tearing it to pieces, while others wanted to trample it with their feet. But they were restrained by the Lord from committing that crime, and the angels were commanded to withdraw the paper, and to keep guard over it. And because the angels became sad and wondered how long this was to be, it was said to them, Until a time, and times, and the half of a time.

(CONJUGIAL LOVE 553).

PREFATORY NOTE.

The Kramph Case marks the culmination of a controversy which has agitated the New Church from the beginning.

In terms the status of the Church before the law of the land was the issue; but, overshadowing the legal contention, is the question of the authority of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE.

Information concerning this case has heretofore been given only in brief and scattered paragraphs in the periodicals of the Church, and with more or less of the sensational in the newspapers of the world.

The conviction that posterity, no less than the present generation should be fully informed, has led the Academy of the New Church to prepare the present history.

The work is based on original documents, and upon stenographic notes of testimony and arguments in Court, all of which are open to inspection in the Archives of the Academy.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Prefatory Note v
Chronology xi
Introduction xii

PART I.

THE HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY.
1. The Outside Attacks on Conjugial Love 3
2. Dissension within the New Church 7
3. The Stand of the Academy 10
4. A Sample of the Slanders 12
5. The Report of 1879 19 
6. The Discussion in New Church Life 20
7. Attitude of English Conference 22
8. The Principles of the Academy 25
9. Propaganda Against the Academy 27
10. The Decoy Letters 33
11. The Womens Petition 35
12. The Resolution and Report 38
13. Laws of Order for the Preservation of the Conjugial 55
14. Mr. Seward on The Saving Power of the Lord 56

PART II.

THE TESTIMONY OF AN EYEWITNESS.
1. Introduction 61
2. Comments Upon the Report 62
3. Mr. Aldens Change of Attitude Toward the Academy 64
4. The Council of Ministers of 1903 67
6. Summary of the Report 69
6. The Resolution and how It Was Adopted 72

PART III.

THE KRAMPH BEQUEST.
1. Introduction 79
2. The General Convention and the Central Convention 79
3. Frederick John Kramph 86
4. The Lancaster Society 89
5. William H. Benade and the Inception of the Academy 95
6. The Will 104
7. The Succession of Trustees 105
8. Ecclesiastical Relations of the Original Trustees 108
9. Attempts at Settlement 111

PART IV.

THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
1. Introductory Note 135
2. The Will 136
3. The Charter of the Academy 141
4. The Question Involved 143
5. The Audit in Lancaster 144

The Succession of Trustees 145

The Case for the Academy 148

The Standard of Authority in the Church 150

Claim that the Convention Is the New Church 157

The Writings, the Standard of the New Church 162

The Morality Question Introduced 165

The Charge of Immorality 168

The Separation of the General Church from the Convention 174

Conjugial Love Offered in Evidence 175

Conjugial Love a Theological or Moral Work? 177

Mr. Coyles Misleading Offer 179

Mr. Worcester Testifies 184

The Authority of Councils Denied 186

Mr. Sewards Scandalous Charge 192

Conjugial Love a Theological Work 196

Mr. McGeorges Testimony 197

Mr. Worcester Recalled 203

Documentary Evidence 204

John Worcesters Instruction Upon Conjugial Love 207

Mr. Doering Corrects His Testimony 212

Bishop Pendleton Testifies 214

Argument by Mr. Coyle 217

Argument by Mr. Weill 217

Argument by Mr. Appel 218

Argument by Mr. Hensel 219

Concluding Argument by Mr. Coyle 226
6. The First Decision 234

The Academy Fulfils All Requirements 234

Devise Declared Illegal 238
7. Exceptions 241

Exceptions by the Academy 241

Exceptions by the Trustees 241
8. Argument on Exceptions 244

Argument by Mr. Johnson 244

Argument by Mr. Weill 251

Argument for the Heirs 252

By Mr. Baker 252

By Mr. Appel 256

Argument by Mr. Keller 259

Brief by Mr. McGeorge 264

Argument by Mr. Coyle 288

Argument by Mr. Hensel 289
9. Second Decision 296
10. The Appeal to the Supreme Court 308

Brief for the Academy 309

Doctrines of the New Church 334

Brief for the Trustees 335

Marriage and Its Perversions 356

Academys Objections to the Pamphlet 363

Brief of the Academy in Reply to the Trustees Brief 364

Brief for the Heirs 385
11. The Supreme Court Decision 391
12. Re-argument before the Supreme Court 391

Brief for the Academy 392

Brief for the Trustees and the Academys Reply 393
13. Final Decision in Favor of the Academy 404

PART V.

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION.
1. Mr. McGeorge and the Newspapers 415
2. Excuses 419
3. Pamphlets 428

The Rev. William L. Worcesters Views 428

The Rev. John Whiteheads Views 431

The Rev. J. E. Smiths Views 432

Marriage and Its Perversions 434
4. Unfounded Charges 441
5. The Engard Case 444
6. Declarations 449

The Messengers Call for a Declaration 450

Declaration by Pennsylvania Association 451

The Convention in Brockton 452

Declaration by the General Convention 454

Reason for the Declaration 456
7. False Witness 457
8. Fornication an Intermediate 459
9. The Duty of New Churchmen 462

PART VI.

THE DOCTRINE INVOLVED.
1. A Declaration Concerning the Doctrine 469
2. Swedenborgs Teaching on Conjugial Love Not Contrary to Civil Law

or Public Policy 479

CHRONOLOGY.
1784First announcement of the Heavenly Doctrines in America (Philadelphia).
1785--Seeds of the New Church first planted in Lancaster.
1786--First circle of receivers, in Philadelphia.
1789--Writings of Swedenborg first published in America.
First Meeting of the General Conference of the New Church in Great Britain.
Robert Hindmarsh and others persecuted on account of their faith in CONJUGIAL LOVE.
1817--First Meeting of the General Convention.
1824Lancaster Society recognized by the General Convention.
1832--Establishment of the Western Convention.
1836Lancaster Society regularly organized.
1838--The Squeezing Rule adopted by the General Convention (see page 82).
1840Organization of the Central Convention.
First Philadelphia Society separates from the General Convention and its members unite with the Central Convention.
1845Rev. W. H. Benade begins his public ministry in the New Church.
1852--Dissolution of the Central Convention.
1854--November 30. Will of F. J. Kramph.
1857May 27. Codicil of Will of F. J. Kramph.
1858--May 22. Death of F. J. Kramph.

Philadelphia Society (Cherry Street) unites with the General Convention.
1865Lancaster Society joins the General Convention.
1874--January 14. Founding of the Academy of the New Church.
1877--November 3. Incorporation of The Academy of the New Church.
1879Report of the Ministers of the General Convention concerning the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE.
1883--Pennsylvania Association, name changed to General Church of Pennsylvania.
1888-90--Discussion of questions raised by Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE in THE NEW CHURCH LIFE.
1889--Formation of (New) Pennsylvania Association.
1890October 16. Lancaster Society separates from the General Church of Pennsylvania.
1891--July 20. Lancaster Society joins the (New) Pennsylvania Association.
1897--Organization of the General Church of the New Jerusalem.
1899--Address of Bishop Pendleton on THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ACADEMY.
1902--December 25. Death of Mrs. Kramph.

May 20. The Womens Petition.
1903--The RESOLUTION AND REPORT of the Ministers of the General Convention.

Petition to Orphans Court by Mrs. Annie E. Rengier, Administratrix, Kamph Estate.
1904--Publication of LAWS OF ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CONJUGIAL, by the Rev. C. Th. Odhner.
Publication of THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD IN RELATION TO PURITY OF LIFE, by the Rev. S. S. Seward.
1907--November 29. Sale of Kramph Estate Real Estate in Lancaster.
1908--July 1, 8, 9. Audit in Lancaster.
July 13. First Decision by Judge E. G. Smith, of Lancaster

Orphans Court, declaring bequest void.
1908December 19, 26. Arguments on Exceptions before Judge Smith in Lancaster.
1909--March 4. Second Decision of Judge Smith, reaffirming first decision.

May 19. Argument on Appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 22. Decision of Supreme Court reversing ruling of Lancaster Court, but asking re-argument as to which claimant should take bequest.

October 25. Re-argument before the Supreme Court.

INTRODUCTION.

THE GOTHENBURG TRIAL AND THE KRAMPH CASE.

The Church of the New Jerusalem in this country has recently passed through a momentous trial, the history of which is presented in the following pages.

In reviewing this now historic case, the mind reverts to that first public trial of the New Church which Swedenborg has characterized as the most important and the most momentous that has been before any council within seventeen hundred years, and the reason he gives why that trial was of such supreme consequence, was that it concerns that New Church which is announced by our Lord in Daniel and in the Apocalypse.

The most important and the most momentous since the time when the Lord in His human was tried and condemned by the Sanhedrim of Jewish lawyers and priests! And yet the trial in Gothenburg, to which Swedenborg refers, apparently concerned only the worldly fortunes of two Doctors of Theology, Gabriel A. Beyer and Johan Rosén, who, in consequence of their devotion to the Heavenly Doctrine of the New Jerusalem, were, in the years 1769-1770, placed on trial before the Lutheran Consistory of Gothenburg and before the King of Sweden.

It is Swedenborg himself who suggests a comparison of this trial in Gothenburg with the one which took place in Jerusalem, seventeen hundred years before. At that ancient trial,--the most important and the most momentous that had ever been or ever will be before a human tribunal,--it was not in reality the Lord who was tried; it was actually the infant Church that was on trial, the willingness of the Disciples to acknowledge the Lord and follow Him whithersoever He would lead. It is known that they one and all forsook Him and fled away in the night. Even Peter thrice denied his Master,--a prophecy of that greater betrayal which was to take place later in the Christian Church as a whole. It is known, also, that Peter, who represented the Faith of the Church, after the third cock-crow repented and wept bitterly,--a Prophecy of the restoration of a true Faith after the Last Judgment, with those who mould reject the falsities and evils of the former Church.

At the trial in Gothenburg, one hundred and forty years ago, it was not the Lord in His Second Coming that was tried; the Doctrine of the New Jerusalem was not even touched as to the smallest point, for the chief inquisitor frankly acknowledged that he was not and did not intend to become acquainted with that Doctrine. What was tried was, again, the loyalty of the nascent Church as represented by the first receivers of the Doctrine. Though, again, some half-hearted friends fled away in the night, yet in this second trial the two actual Disciples, the first New Churchmen in this world, next to Swedenborg, remained fearless witnesses of the Truth, though threatened with utter ruin. There was no denial, no compromise, no effort to explain away unpopular teachings, but staunch, courageous loyalty to conscientious conviction,--a worthy beginning, indeed, of that Church which is to endure forever as the crown of all the Churches. And it was this very loyalty which, through years of persecution, carried the intended victims to ultimate victory.

The trial just ended, which will go down into history as the Kramph Case, may well be considered as most important and most momentous, since it also has concerned, and still concerns, that New Church which is announced by our Lord in Daniel and in the Apocalypse. It is not the Doctrine itself that has been tried, for that is beyond human tribunal, but it has been a trial of the Church, a trial of the willingness of New Churchmen to stand loyally by the new Divine Revelation which has been given to them. What the results will be must be left to the knowledge of future generations. But we may be assured that the Lord in His Heavenly Doctrine will guard the New Church,--and that in this Doctrine alone resides the power of victory.

I have not taken a single step in defense of the case (says Swedenborg, writing in the very midst of the Gothenburg agitation in Sweden), for I know that our Savior Himself defends His Church. I have also been told by an angel from the Lord, that I may rest securely on my arms in the night, by which is meant the night in which the world is now immersed in respect to the things of the Church.

PART I.

The History of the Controversy.

PART I.

THE HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY.

THE OUTSIDE ATTACKS ON CONJUGIAL LOVE.

Unto the pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving there is nothing pure. It is well known that evil blunts the power of rational judgment and perception. An evil and adulterous generation cannot internally perceive any difference between marriage and adultery, and still less can it discriminate between the various forms of fornication and concubinage as described in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE. As Swedenborg observes, with such persons the understanding is involved in such a shade, that it knows not how to discriminate fornication from adultery, and still less the mild kinds of fornication from its grievous ones, and those of adultery in like manner; thus it mixes evils, and from diverse evils makes one pottage, and from diverse goods one paste (C. L. 444a). And again he observes that the distinction between these things may be seen by those who look upon things minutely and distinctly; but by those who look confusedly and indistinctly it cannot be seen; yea, it may be seen by those who are in conjugial love, but not by those who are in the love of adultery; the latter are in night concerning all the derivations of the love of the sex, but the former are in daylight concerning them (C. L. 463).

To the enemies of the New Church these things have all been one, and, consequently, wherever the New Church has appeared on the earth, the servants of the Dragon have raised the scandal that the members of the New Church seek to shield practices of free love under the cover of fine religions distinctions.

It would be of interest, did space permit, to review the successive attacks that have been made upon CONJUGIAL LOVE by its Old Church assailants; to examine in detail the malicious slanders and perversions that have issued forth during the course of a century from purists of the Orthodox churches, and to present a summary of the arguments set forth in defense of the work by the apologists of the New Church. The first attacks were made in 1813 by an English clergyman named Grundy, and were continued by a host of others, not only in England and America, but also in Germany and Sweden. From the mass of this literature we select, as representative specimens, a work entitled SWEDENBORGIANISM DEPICTED IN ITS TRUE COLORS, published at Darby, England, in 1820, by the Rev. J. G. Pike; and a pamphlet with a long and misleading name, published in the same year by the Rev. J. W. Ellingwood, of Bath, Me., and, reviewed by the Rev. Samuel Worcester in his REMARKS ON SEVERAL COMMON ERRORS CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF EMANUEL SWEDENBORG (Boston, 1832). The extracts quoted below do not furnish elevating reading, but are significant because of their resemblance to recent charges directed by the General Convention and its official organ against the Academy of the New Church.

Mr. Pike, after an onslaught on the general doctrines of the New Church charges that

XIV. SWEDENBORG IS THE ENCOURAGER OF VICE.HE SANCTIONS FORNICATION.... His treatise on Conjugial (that is, conjugal) Love, in two [!] volumes octave, is probably one of the most obscene and impure books in the English language. He appears from it to have delighted in letting his thoughts dwell on impure scenes, and repeatedly mentions his meditating on different lusts. This tract contains some extracts from that work; but many parts of it, like the obscenities practiced in the polluted worship of Hindoo idols, are too impure to be presented to the readers eye. The writers mind recoiled at the mere idea of publishing various passages which he marked in the Barons pages.

Sexual intercourse is his frequent subject; and this he asserts, is carried on to a much greater extent in heaven than on earth. Fornication, and adultery also, in certain circumstances he allows (Swed. Depict., P. 32).

He speaks of the lust of fornicating as being a bind of middle state (sphere he terms it), between conjugial love and the love of adultery; ... were these doctrines of the founder of the New Church to become generally prevalent, could we expect any other than that an overwhelming deluge of pollution and impurity would curse our country; and that those acts of lewdness which God abhors, but which this man sanctions, would be multiplied a hundred-fold?... On Baron Swedenborgs principles it is not unlawful, but allowable, for one sex to indulge in fornication, and consequently it must be as allowable for the other sex to live in prostitution (Ibid., pp. 35, 36).

XV. SWEDENBORG ALSO SANCTIONS CONCUBINAGE AND ADULTERY. In various parts of his writings he speaks against adultery and those who practice it; but then it is evident that he does not condemn the crime in all cases, but merely when it is perpetrated in such a manner as to transgress the rules within which he would confine it.... Swedenborg ... assigns many causes for putting a wife away; and though he does not expressly sanction another marriage, he does most expressly declare that a man may take another woman to the bed of his injured wife to be his concubine (Ibid., pp. 37, 38).

The sum of Swedenborgs doctrine on this point is this, that fornication, in many cases, is allowable, and even necessary for unmarried men; that the keeping of a concubine, and consequent adultery, is in many cases equally lawful for married men; and that for this there are many causes legitimate, just, and conscientious; that adultery, where the parties are married, is, in various cases, mild; and that where adulteries are not mild, they still will not be imputed to those guilty persons whose understandings afterward condemn their wicked conduct. A nice morality, truly! (Ibid., pp. 41, 42).

The following extracts from Ellingwoods pamphlet, as quoted by the Rev. Samuel Worcester, may suffice as specimens:

The second part of [Ellingwoods pamphlet] unfolds the views of Swedenborg as to personal purity. It consists of a. series of extracts front his treatise on SCORTATORY LOVE, the last of his treatises put into the hands of the young disciple. Most of those who read these Extracts, will be ready to say that they are not genuine; that no man could dare to recommend, under the sanction of his name, such horrible impurity to mankind.

Yet the reader is assured that the extracts are taken, word for word, from the treatise above mentioned; and if he will procure that treatise he will find in it much more of the same gross and monstrous nature. To publish even this is such an offense against delicacy, as nothing but the necessity of the case, and a sincere desire to expose the impurity of this dreadful system of morals, can justify (REMARKS ON SEVERAL COMMON ERRORS, S. Worcester, Boston, 1832, p. 27).

The Rev. Samuel Worcester, in his REMARKS, calls attention to Ellingwoods reference to SCORTATORY LOVE as though this were a distinct work by Swedenborg, whereas it is only the latter part of a work which has the following title: THE DELIGHTS OF WISDOM CONCERNING CONJUGIAL LOVE. AFTER WHICH FOLLOW THE PLEASURES OF INSANITY CONCERNING SCORTATORY LOVE (Ibid., p. 27).

Ellingwood continues:

Can any man in the possession of his senses, believe that Jehovah, in whoso sight heaven is unclean, inspired Emanuel Swedenborg to write the monstrous impurity found in the preceding pages? Does that Jesus, who said to his disciples, But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart, approve of writings which teach the lawfulness of keeping a mistress? Will parents embrace the tenets of a man who enumerates the conscientious causes of keeping a mistress? Will they procure such a book for the perusal of their sons and their daughters? A book fit for no society but that of prostitutes, for no place but that house which is the WAY TO HELL, going down to the chambers of death (Ibid., p. 27).

Upon this diatribe Mr. Worcester remarks:

The work alluded to is fit, and was designed to be fit, for prostitutes, and for all fornicators and adulterers, whether they belong literally to houses of ill fame, or to the chambers of the respected, or the closets and conventicles of the self-righteous;--and whether their sins be actual, or only in the heart. The author, however, probably meant to imply, that this work is fit to teach impure persons the way to hell; whereas I suppose it is fit to teach the way from hell. So, even in this particular, I have not the pleasure of agreeing with him (Ibid., p. 47).

The assaults of the Old Church upon CONJUGIAL LOVE have been strikingly characterized by William White, in his first biography of Swedenborg (1856):

This portion of the treatise [on CONJUGIAL LOVE] has subjected Swedenborg to some gross calumny, which, if sincere, could only have arisen from a very superficial acquaintance with the principles of its author; and yet it is hardly possible for a man to write on such subjects, without provoking the censure of the sickly virtuous and the hypocritically pure. Religious people too generally treat the dire sexual evils, which infest and corrupt society, with silence and aversion, passing them by as the priest and the Levite did the wounded traveler. When the spirit of Jesus more fully actuates the Church, and the love of the neighbor prompts to heal the worlds evils by all efficient means, then, we have no doubt, Swedenborg on SCORTATORY LOVE, will be taken into council (p. 111).

2.

DISSENSION WITHIN THE NEW CHURCH.

As CONJUGIAL LOVE was the first object of attack from without, so also it formed the subject of the first dissension and controversy within the infant organization of the New Church.

This occurred in the year 1789, immediately after the first meeting of the General Conference of the New Church in Great Britain, and it is mentioned for the first time in an address by the Rev. Manoah Sibly, in the year 1839:

I am here under the necessity of stating, however reluctantly, that in the year 1789 a very sorrowful occurrence befell the infant New Church, whereby the flood-gates of immorality were in danger of being thrown open, to her inevitable destruction.

The Church held many solemn meetings on the occasion, which ended in her withdrawing herself from six of her members, viz.: Robert Hindmarsh, Henry Servant, Charles B. Wadström, Augustus Nordenskjld, George Robinson, and Alexander Wilderspin. (Address to the Society in Friar Street, London, pp. 3, 4. See also NEW CHURCH REPOSITORY, 1852, p. 517.)

Mr. Sibly does not state in what way these prominent members were implicated in the opening of the flood-gates of immorality upon the New Church. Nor does the Minute Book of the Great East Cheap Society give any information, for the pages recording these many solemn meetings have been torn out of the book and apparently destroyed.

From page 46 to 63 are missing. And we have been informed that it was not deemed advisable to let posterity see the nature of the records contained therein (Thomas Robinson in REMEMBRANCER AND RECORDER, Manchester, 1864, p. 94).

This fact is continued by Mr. Elihu Rich in the NEW CHURCH REPOSITORY (New York, 1853, p. 545), where this old scandal was unearthed in order to throw doubt upon the validity of the New Church ordinations proceeding from Robert Hindmarsh. Under these circumstances Mr. Samuel M. Warren wrote for authentic information to Mr. John Isaac Hawkins, who at that time was the last surviving member of the Society in Great East Cheap. Mr. Hawkins, in his reply, dated Rahway, New Jersey, 1853, wrote as follows:

With respect to the sorrowful occurrence you allude to from Mr. Siblys pamphlet, it was a perverted view of Swedenborgs doctrine of concubinage in his work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, then just published; whereby some held that if a husband and wife did not agree, they might separate, and the man take a concubine; I forget whether or not the wife was to have the same privilege. The notion, however, soon ceased to be broached, and the Church was relieved from further discussion of the distressing subject. I do not recollect any case where the notion was acted on. Mr. Hindmarsh certainly did not; nor do I believe that either of the other five persons you name did (NEW CHURCH REPOSITORY, 1853, p. 143).

In the same volume of the REPOSITORY Mr. Hawkins statement is corroborated by Mr. Henry Bateman, of London, who at one time had conversed with Mr. Sibly on this subject. From this conversation he reports that

The evil itself was no other than an erroneous view of Swedenborgs teachings in the treatise on SCORTATORY LOVE,a work which was viewed from an unchaste ground by some of the early receivers of the Doctrines.... And whilst Robert Hindmarsh believed that those views were true to some extent, and to a degree which was calculated in the estimation of good Mr. Sibly to open the flood-gates of immorality, he kept aloof, in the opinion of Mr. Sibly himself, from all unchaste practices (Ibid., p. 145).

Of course he did, being blessed with a most happy and life-long marriage! From all the evidence, together with the known attitude of Hindmarsh and his associates toward the Writings, it is manifest that they simply upheld the Divine Authority of the Doctrine

In any event, the incident shows that there has been, since the very beginning of the New Church, a divergence of opinion in regard to the understanding of the Doctrine, similar to that which at the present time figures so largely in the Church; and that, as at this day, so then, those who openly defended the plain teaching of CONJUGIAL LOVE, were subjected to attack and slander on their personal character.

While, prior to the year 1879, no public controversy on the subject appeared in the literature of the New Church, the secret attitude of many was undoubtedly represented by Dr. W. H. Holcombe when, in his LETTERS ON SPIRITUAL SUBJECTS (referring to the latter part of CONJUGIAL LOVE), he exclaims: This is the skeleton in the New Church closet, which all of us are afraid of, and which all of us wish had never been created. The Old Church people and other people have found it out and parade it against the general truth and purity of Swedenborgs teachings. And the same writer proceeds to state that independent thinkers, who take the good and throw the bad away, in Swedenborg and everywhere else, have no special difficulty about this matter. This man, they say, is here false to himself and to the supernal loveliness of his teaching everywhere else (p. 299). Dr. Holcombe therefore calmly draws his penknife through the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE.

And the Rev. B. F. Barrett asks with equal frankness:

Do we not all practically repudiate this teaching, and at heart (whatever lips or pens may affirm) deny that it is from the Lord out of heaven? ... And would not the cause we hold so dear,the sacred cause of the New Church,be the gainer rather than the loser, if we all should repudiate Swedenborgs teaching (in this subject as boldly and emphatically as Dr. Holcombe has done? (NEW CHURCH INDEPENDENT, 1885, pp. 321, 322).

Open repudiations, such as these, have at least the merit of frankness and intelligibility, qualities that cannot be predicated of the position of those who professedly accept CONJUGIAL LOVE as part of the Divine Revelation to the New Church, and yet deny that its teachings are laws of Divine Order for that Church. On the other hand, throughout the history of the New Church there have always been a few who have neither repudiated nor sought to explain away these teachings, but have upheld the work as Divine throughout, and as intended, in all its parts, for the instruction and life of those who have received the Heavenly Doctrine.

3.

THE STAND OF THE ACADEMY.

The Divine Authority of the Heavenly Doctrine man from the beginning the standard raised by the Academy. Stimulated by the new view of the Writings as the very Word of the Lord in His Second Coming, the study of these Writings brought to clearer light a number of fundamental principles which henceforth became known as Academy Principles. The doctrine taught in the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE having been especially attacked by members of the New Church, the defense of this doctrine became one of these principles of the Academy. As the attack upon this doctrine continued, year after year, so the Academy continued to defend it. The enemies of the doctrine, indeed, soon spread about the impression that the Academy over-emphasized this particular doctrine, singling it out, calling undue attention to it, etc., but the facts of history show that the Academy has not dwelt on it, except for the purpose of defending it as an integral part of the Heavenly Doctrine.

All the principles of the Academy, including the one just referred to, at once met with violent opposition. Private letters by members of the Academy were surreptitiously circulated and misrepresented, and made the basis of all but open charges against the motives and morals of the writers.

Before long, a storm of anger and slander broke out. The members of the Academy were accused of dwelling upon the doctrine of permissions in order to excuse immoral practices. From the beginning up to the present time this has been the method employed by the enemies of the Academy. Sly whisperings, vague insinuations, dark hints about incriminating documents preserved by high authorities,--there has been plenty of this sort of evidence, but no rational arguments, no proofs of misconduct, no publication of the secreted letters, and, on the part of those who have listened to the slanders, no effort to investigate the truth of the stories. There have been exceptions, however, for there were found a few honorable men who hesitated to believe without evidence the foul rumors against fellow-members of the Words New Church; but when these men traced the slanders to their sources they found them wicked lies, which, though many were quick to circulate, none could be found to father.

The sinister phenomenon of this kind of propaganda is, after all, only a repetition of the persecution to which every new Church, and every new reformatory movement in any Church, has always been subjected in the past. When illogical arguments fail to overthrow a rational position, the odium theologicum always takes refuge in insinuations and personal slanders. The primitive Christians were thus slandered, especially by the Jews, who sedulously spread abroad the story that the love-feasts of the Christians were libidinous orgies, and that a Jewish or heathen child was sacrificed and eaten at the Eucharist! No slander was too hellish for Jewish imagination and malice, nor too absurd for heathen credulity.

It was similar at the time of the Reformation, when Luther preached the abolition of clerical celibacy, and himself married a former nun. The slanders against Luther and his chaste and noble wife, Catharina von Bora, are still, after a period of four hundred years, being circulated throughout the Roman Catholic Church.

4.

A SAMPLE OF THE SLANDERS.

In illustration of the slanders circulated against the Academy, we publish the following correspondence between the Rev. Arthur Faraday, then a member of the Camden Road Society, London, and the Rev. William H. Benade, then traveling in Europe.

MR. FARADAY TO MR. BENADE.
London 21 Feby, 1879.
42 Hatton Garden,

REV. W. H. BENADE.

My dear Sir: For some weeks past I have been desirous of writing to you concerning a matter which has given me much anxious thought, and which I feel must also occasion you some pain and annoyance, but which I think it necessary to communicate. In the course of conversation with a very warm New Churchman, and one who I know has the cause of the New Church thoroughly at heart, I mentioned the Academy and its work, saying how much I was interested is it, and how thoroughly I believed in the general lines it lays down, etc. My friend replied that if we accepted the views of the Academy we must admit the necessity of scortatory loves. I asked what he meant by such a statement? He said that a leading member of the Academy when in England had recommended such to a young minister of the Church whose wife was at that time in a state of ill health. If, said he, such is the teaching of the Academy, it cannot be from heaven, but must come from Hell! The conversation took place here, and in the midst of business, so that I was not able to go into the question with my friend so fully as I should have done had it take place elsewhere; it, however, made a deep impression on my mind, and I thought I had better let you know because, if the charge is correct, it certainly requires explanation; if it be not true, it should have the most unqualified denial.

I have written to you because I felt, though no names were mentioned, that you were the person referred to as having given such advice, and for this reason that I am not aware of any other prominent member of the Academy having been in England, who is not now in England.

I feel that I know you sufficiently well to be sure that you will not attribute anything to me in taking this course, than an earnest desire to get at the truth, and as I believe you to be actuated by a similar motive, therefore no apology is necessary for my so writing. You are doubtless aware of the action that has been taken by some of the members of the Camden Road Society; and opposition to the teachings of the Academy, I feel, is at the root of such action; the side issues are secondary.

As you are aware, it was some long time before I felt that I could accept the fundamental principles laid down; of their truth in the main I had no doubt, but I cannot refrain from expressing the fact that my allegiance has somewhat wavered under this attack, the feeling of doubt whether we are on the right track will creep in, when statements like the one I have named are made by earnest, pious men; men whose lives have been purer and better for their acquaintance with the doctrines of the Church.

Need I say I have not mentioned this matter to any other person? Should you reply to this I shall be glad if you will address me here. I feel quite certain that you are capable of easing my mind, and in the hope that you will do so at the earliest possible opportunity with sincere regards, I remain

Yours very truly,

(Signed) ARTHUR FARADAY.

MR. BENADE TO MR. FARADAY,
Paris, Feb. 24th, 1879.
MR. ARTHUR FARADAY.

My dear Sir: Your favor of the 2lst inst. has just come to hand. I thank you for the information concerning the conversation with your friend, and only regret that it was not conveyed to me with out delay.

You do not state, and I cannot imagine, from what source your friend has derived his knowledge of the views of the Academy. If a leading member of this body, when in England, recommended scortatory loves to a young minister of the Church whose wife was at that time in a state of ill health, he must have done so on his own responsibility, and could not have said or intimated that the Academy taught the necessity of scortatory loves.

In regard to the views of this body, I may be supposed to speak with some degree of authority; and in order that you, your friend, and all others interested in the question may not be misled by the uncertain and false testimony which our opponents are so diligently circulating, I ask you to declare to him, and to others, that the Academy of the New Church teaches only what the Lord has revealed for the use of the Church through His Servant Emanuel Swedenborg, nothing more, and nothing less;

that on the subject of the true relation of the sexes, and all things concerning that relation, the Academy receives its doctrine from the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, which is as much a part of the Divine revelation wherein the Lord makes His Second Advent, as any other work of the Church, and in which whatever is well and necessary for us to know regard to the sexes, is simply and clearly set forth from the Lord; that in that work, as throughout the Writings, scortatory love is declared to be from Hell,--whether such love be active without or within, the bounds of legal or ceremonial marriage; that such love is from Hell, because it is essentially adultery, and that because according to the doctrine of the Lords Word, He that looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart; it is the lust of the heart which constitutes adultery,--therefore, if a man cohabits with a woman from mere lust, whether that woman be his married partner or not, his act internally and essentially is adultery, and his love is scortatory; that, just as external marriages, formed under the impulse of natural loves, are permitted at the present day, and exist of common occurrence in the New Church, au means by which man, if possible, may be led from a natural to a spiritual state of life, so under certain circumstances and in certain conditions clearly noted and well defined, it is declared in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, to be allowable [not unallowable, C. L. 167], not hurtful* and not injurious to the conscience [C. L. 473] for a man and a woman to be in a concubinical relation, and this for the sake of the preservation of the conjugial principle, which principle is preserved in those who are regenerating, or who can be regenerated, and who, entering heaven, can become angels.

* Indemne, C. L. 463.

If this last point is what your friend means when he says that the Academy teaches the necessity of scortatory loves, please call his attention to his use of words,--in such a case almost criminally careless,--in substituting for permission a word of an opposite meaning (necessity); and also to the fact that Swedenborg does not speak of the natural love which is active,when concubinage is entered into from causes just, legitimate, and truly excusatory,--as scortatory love; and that this term cannot be more justly applied to it than to the natural love which is more or less active in nearly all so-called marriages contracted in the world, and even in the Church, at this day.

Add to this also, if you please, that if the teaching of the Academy on this subject is from Hell, then the teaching of a portion of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE,--that, viz.: on Separations in Part I, and on Concubinage, etc., in Part II, is no less from Hell; because the Academy teaches simply what it receives from the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE.

I do not here enter into an argument on these questions, nor will I, at this time, show the absurdity and falsity of the reasoning contained in the unwarranted and unwarrantable preface to Part II of CONJUGIAL LOVE;* I merely give you my understanding of what are called the views of the Academy, which are, in fact, no more than an honest acceptance of the teachings of the Lord in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE. If the members of the New Church are not prepared to take their stand with us on this ground, let them at least be honest and jest, and condemn Swedenborg, or rather the Lord (for the teaching is from Him), and not those who are unwilling to regard themselves as more pure than the angels, or wiser than the Lord; and who desire in all things to have their understandings lifted out of the mists and obscurities of the conceits of natural charity and intelligence, so that their judgments may be formed in the light of spiritual truth, as it now descends from God out of heaven.

* See Swedenborg Society Ed., London, 1876.

There is no love of the Lord or of the neighbor in the spirit which has moved so many and indirectly to assail the men of the Academy,--men whose lives have been devoted to the service of the Church, who have made and are now making great sacrifices in the performance of the most important spiritual uses, and who, whilst they are men like the rest of their brethren, full of evils, and liable to err in judgment, are equally with them, under the Lords merciful guidance, hopeful of regeneration and salvation by the Truth. Whether we see this Truth more or less clearly than others, the Lord knows, and time will reveal. We demand, and in spite of the world, and of Hell, we propose by the Lords aid, to exercise our freedom and reason in respect to all things which concern our spiritual and eternal life. From this ground I trust that we shall never suffer ourselves to be moved by the opinions of the world, or by the assaults of men. Let others see to it that they are not assailing the Lord and His Truth in their attacks upon us. We are sorry for those who are led by Draconic or other influences of a similar kind to place themselves in so perilous a position; but of this they may be assured, that we are prepared to maintain our ground, and that ultimately the Truth will prevail. If men will have war, they must be permitted to have war. After combat comes peace. As in our individual lives we have to pass through conflict after conflict, so in the Church, there can be no movement, no progress without combat. Personal assaults may slay men; but they cannot destroy the Truth. So much for the subject-matter of your letter in its general aspect.

You do not state, and from your letter I infer that you do not know who the two parties are, to whom your friend referred.

If I am the leading member of the Academy, who recommended, etc., or if I am supposed to be this party, I can say without hesitation that the statement is as false as it is absurd. It has been a rule of action with me for many years never to counsel or recommend anyone either to do this or that one particular thing, if the action involved a rational or spiritual responsibility on his part. I had learnt from the Writings that the angels never do this, and had concluded that their reason for abstaining from such a course,--i. e., because it was contrary to the Lords will, and injurious to mans freedom and rationality,was the best reason for my adoption of their rule. And, certainly, if I had deviated from a rule which has become so fixed a habit that many have complained of it before knowing the reasons which had determined it, I should never and could never, have recommended anyone to practice scortatory loves. The thing is absurd on the face of it,--and a man of common sense should have rejected the idea at once,--and certainly a man of genuine charity would have kept his tongue from repeating it. But apart from this, I have no recollection when in England of speaking with any young minister on this subject. It is possible that I may hare made some general remarks, and if you could give me the name of the alleged person, I might be able to recall the substance of our conversation, and place the truth before you. I have a right to ask his name. Yet, knowing my own views of the relations of the sexes, and of marriage, I am at a loss to imagine what utterances of mine can have been tortured into it recommendation to a young minister whose wife was at that time in a state of ill health, to practice scortatory loves. I am not in the habit of saying what I do not think.

If this matter has not another origin, and is not a part of the attack so persistently made on us in America, and now transferred to England by its controlling spirits, or by the men who are the agents of these spirits, I am inclined to believe that the charge is merely some persons way of putting remarks, possibly made by myself, or by some other member of the Academy. Consider your friends language for a moment, if we admit the views of the Academy we must admit the necessity of scortatory loves, and you will see that the latter clause is only a conclusion of the speakers, from something that has come to him indirectly, and possibly misreported, and that his conclusion is clothed in language which no member of the Academy could have employed to express the views of that body. We are not altogether silly and stupid that we should so express our views of a permitted freedom of action, as to convey to others the idea of the necessity of wrong action.

Again, if the opinion of your friend is not the result of misrepresentation by others, or of misconception on his own part, you may possibly discover that he occupies common ground with many Old Church opponents of the New Church, in that he condemns the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE as immoral in its teachings, and subversive of the order of human society. If this be the case, we, of the Academy, have no special issue with him. His controversy, on the external plane, is with Swedenborg, on the internal plane with the Church and with Heaven, and on the inmost plane with the Lord Himself. If, with the world, he cannot see the gradations and distinctions of the loves in question, let him study the subject carefully, and let him read and reflect well upon these words: That the two kinds of concubinage differ as much from each other as dirty linen from clean, may be seen by those who take a clear and distinct view of things, but not by those whose view of things is confused and indistinct; yea, it may be seen by those who are in conjugial love, but not by those who are in the love of adultery (C. L. 463).

Unfortunately for the men of the New Church, the work which treats of Conjugial Love, a love that is the very foundation of the life of the Church and of Heaven, is less known and studied than any other work of the Church. By a large number of persons it is tabooed and sedulously kept out of the hands of young persons, and withheld from new receivers of our doctrines. This is worse than an error of judgment, it is a great wrong and evil, and, if the attack now made upon us because of our candid affirmation of that which the Lord has taught us through Swedenborg in this book, shall lead to a more extended and careful study of the same, me shall be altogether content. Indeed, I do not doubt that such will be the case with the more thoughtful and better disposed members of the Church.

To yourself, my dear sir, I would say, do not suffer the remarks of your friend to disturb your mind. They hare not annoyed me. Examine the subject for yourself and ponder upon what has been revealed, anti allow the Lord to form your opinions, that they may be in accord with the opinions of Heaven.

I do not doubt that hostility to the Academy is at the bottom of the trouble in the Camden Road Society, and that this hostility is directed, as it is inspired, by the Draconic spirits in the other world who would destroy the great fundamental Truth concerning the Lord upon which our body is based. This hostility is cropping out everywhere,we must expect it. The end is not yet. I suppose the question of Dr. Tafels retention will be settled in the meeting of the Society to be held this evening. The Lord will direct this matter, as He directs all things, for good. (Signed) W. H. BENADE.

P. S.--You are at liberty to make such use of this letter as your judgment may dictate.

MR. FARADAY TO MR. BENADE.

31, March, 1879.

My dear Sir: Doubtless you will have wondered at not receiving an acknowledgment of your letter in answer to mine respecting the teaching of the Academy; but the reason of my not doing so is that I have been waiting until I got a reply from my friend, to whom I forwarded your letter and a copy of mine to you. At present I have received no acknowledgment whatever, and feel that my friend has been wanting in politeness, but I expect in the course of a week or two to see him and shall then learn the cause of his not writing. Your letter to me completely set my mind at rest, and I thank you very much for the trouble you took in the matter.

Yours very truly,

(Signed) ARTHUR FARADAY.

MR. FARADAY TO MR. BENADE.

28, April, 1879.

REV. W. H. BENADE

My dear Sir: Having at last had an opportunity of talking with my friend relative to your letter of the 24th Feby, I have much pleasure in communicating the substance of the conversation.

In the first place, he says that what he said had not reference to my member of the Academy visiting England; therefore I must have strangely misunderstood him; and, secondly, that in using the word necessity I misrepresented him and what he had said.

These two points being the most prominent in my mind, and also those on which you dwelt most especially when writing, having met with a denial, I feel that no further action can be taken.

With respect to the advanced teaching of the Academy, I know we must expect marked differences of opinion. The inference drawn by my friend on the perusal of your letter was so different to my own that it showed me how impossible it is for two minds to see alike, unless they start from the same common ground; and whilst personally I felt the better and stronger for your letter, and every sentence seemed a denial of the charge made, to the mind of my friend, it seemed to carry conviction that in the main he was right in what he had stated, and inferred that your construction of what Swedenborg had written tended to lessen the sanctity of the marriage bond, and rendered that state not less derogatory than concubinage given certain conditions.

However, my powers of persuasion were not sufficient to make him see that such could not be drawn from a careful consideration of the whole of your letter, and that what you had written respecting the subject was not your own, but what you found in Swedenborgs work on CONJUGIAL LOVE; but I think you were right when you said, Again, if the opinion of your friend is not the result of misrepresentation by others, or misconception on his own part, you may possibly discover that he occupies common ground with many Old Church opponents of the New Church, in that he condemns the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE as immoral and subversive of the order of human society;

if he would not go so far in his condemnation there is certainly a strong objection on his part to believe that the works of Swedenborg come to us with any higher authority than that of a man.

Considering so little good has resulted, I almost regret having troubled you to write at the length you did, but I thank you most heartily for having done so, as thereby my own mind has been see at rest in a manner it could not have been but from your letter. I remain

Yours very truly,

(Signed) ARTHUR FARADAY.

5.

THE REPORT OF 1879.

The slanders against the Academy broke out at the Convention held in Boston, in the year 1878, owing particularly to the activity of Mr. William McGeorge, Jr., of Philadelphia. In view of the disturbed state of mind in the Church, consequent upon his propaganda, the ministers of the New Church in America, at a meeting in Brooklyn, May, 1879, adopted A REPORT expressing the understanding of the ministers on the subject of Swedenborgs teaching concerning pellicacy and concubinage.

This REPORT, which was afterwards published, was clearly a compromise between two contending parties, inasmuch as we find therein on the one hand rational discriminations, and on the other unqualified condemnations of the practices in question. On the one hand it is stated that

Very many good people have never thought it right to attend to the subject at all, much less to consider it deliberately in the light of reason and Christian truth. They have condemned all lustfulness indiscriminately, and considered anyone as already polluted who ventured to point out that there are degrees in that evil, some of which may be pardonable (A REPORT OF THE MINISTERS OF THE NEW CHURCH, 1879, p. 6).

And on the other hand undiscriminating questions such as these:

But does Swedenborg teach that among the extra-conjugial loves there are any so mild as to be of the Divine Order? or does he teach that they are all to be shunned, as he says the angels shun them, as the loss of the soul and the lakes of hell? These mildest forms are called in general, fornication, pellicacy, and concubinage (Ibid., p. 3).

Having thus confounded the extra-conjugial loves with the mildest forms of practice, identifying both with the loss of the soul and the lakes of hell, the ministers in the same document proceed to prove that these mildest forms (p. 3) nevertheless may be pardonable and not unlawful (p. 6); that they will not be imputed to him as intentional sin against marriage (p. 6); and that by means of them his love for marriage may be preserved (p. 6).

6.

THE DISCUSSION IN NEW CHURCH LIFE.

Like all compromises, the REPORT of 1879 effected no permanent reconciliation between the two opposing schools of thought in the Church, and the storm of controversy broke out a new when, during the years 1858-1890, the subject of pellicacy and concubinage was occasionally discussed in the pages of NEW CHURCH LIFE, the recognized exponent of the principles of the Academy.* Questions were asked by readers of that journal, and editorial answers were given with a frankness based upon the assumption that every subject might be freely discussed in the light of the Heavenly Doctrines.

A mistake was made, however, in permitting the inquirers in a family journal too great a scope for questions of a private and delicate nature, and the editorial replies in some cases went beyond the Doctrine itself. While the general spirit of loyalty to the Writings, inspiring these articles, is to be admired and upheld, it is to be freely admitted that the journal in two instances lost sight of the distinctions made in the Writings as to the states and necessities of men and women.

* The LIFE did not, however, become the official organ of the Academy until January, 1890. When the journal was adopted as such, the editors made the announcement that while from the beginning the paper was conducted in sympathy with the ends and objects of these bodies the Academy and the General Church], it never was controlled by either of them, the editors alone having at all times been responsible for its utterances (NEW CHURCH LIFE, 1890, p. 17).

Finally an editorial statement appeared, upon which, when isolated from its general context, the enemies of the Academy could fasten their accusations,--the statement that, while marriage is not allowable between persons of different religions, yet there is no reason why pellicacy, which makes a distinction between the souls of two, and conjoins only the sensuals of the body, should not be carried on with one outside the Church (1890, p. 86).

The editor of the LIFE, throughout the discussion, had emphasized the teaching that the laws concerning the intermediate relations are applicable only where the conditions answer to those described in the Doctrines; but, supposing this to be well understood, he did not include the qualifying clause in his concluding sentence. Recognizing the omission, he inserted, on p. 174 of the same volume, the following correction:

It is freely admitted that the wording at the end of the article in the June issue of NEW CHURCH LIFE was not so clear as might be desired. In the following words the paragraph more clearly and fully expresses the conclusion formed by the LIFE from the Doctrines on the subject. The italics mark the changes from the original paragraph:

From all that has been brought forward there results this conclusion: that, as marriage is a union of souls and a conjunction of minds, and from these a conjunction of bodies, and as the prohibition concerning marriage with one out of the Church is based upon this law, there is no reason why pellicacy of the kind provided for in the Doctrines of the New Church, and which, according to them, makes a distinction between the souls of two, and conjoins only the sensuals of the body (C. L. 460), may not be carried on with one outside the Church, where the conditions answer to those described in the Doctrines.

But a candid reader would know that the words in italics were involved in the original sentence.

7.

ATTITUDE OF ENGLISH CONFERENCE.

As soon as the article in the LIFE for June, 1890, appeared, the enemies of the Academy in England made it the occasion for a public attack. The sentence was torn apart from its connection, and the LIFE was represented as teaching that there is no reason why pellicacy might not be carried on by any member of the New Church with one outside the Church. And without further investigation the General Conference of 1890, by a majority vote, adopted a resolution declaring that the teaching set forth in the editorial remarks at the close of an article in NEW CHURCH LIFE for June, 1890, entitled Laws of Marriage and Pellicacy, is utterly opposed to the Doctrines of the New Church; and that the circulation of such teaching brings scandal upon the Church and encourages wickedness. It was freely admitted at the time that the vast majority of the members of the Conference had never seen the article in question. (For a full account of this meeting, see NEW CHURCH LIFE for 1890, pp. 175-190.)

The Conference at the same time adopted a resolution whereby the Rev. Robert J. Tilson, as the agent of the LIFE in England, was affectionately, but urgently, requested to repudiate the teaching of NEW CHURCH LIFE on this subject, and also to withdraw from the Institution which published that periodical as its official organ,--a resolution which the Rev. Thomas Child (who could not be accused of sympathy with the Academy) at once pronounced an abominable piece of tyranny. Mr. Tilson himself, in the midst of the storm, declared, I will not, and again and forever, I will not (p. 188).

He soon afterwards resigned from the General Conference. The whole action of the Conference was deprecated in America, even by opponents of the Academy, not so much because of any inherent injustice of the proceedings, but rather because it placed the members of the Academy in the position of martyrs.

The controversy was continued for a year or two in the pages of NEW CHURCH LIFE and THE NEW CHURCH MONTHLY, and the literature on the subject was further enriched by an anonymous publication entitled A CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE MINISTER AND THE CONFERENCE REPRESENTATIVE OF A SOCIETY OF THE NEW CHURCH, AND A THEN MEMBER OF THE SAME SOCIETY, ON THE SUBJECT OF A RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE CONFERENCE RESPECTING CERTAIN TEACHINGS OF NEW CHURCH LIFE (Colchester, 1891). The position of the Conference is set forth by the Minister and the Representative, while the position of the Academy is defended by the Member in a very forcible and logical manner.

Among the articles in THE NEW CHURCH MONTHLY, special attention should be called to the correspondence between the Rev. John Presland, President of the Conference, and the Rev. John Faulkner Potts, in which the latter expressed himself as follows in regard to the action of the Conference:

The men against whom all this bitter hostility, and I am afraid I must say, hatred, is manifested, have merely held fast to the best of their ability to the doctrine of the New Church as it is revealed to us by the God of Heaven Himself in the Writings. This is all that they have done to merit the dislike and hostility of their brethren in the New Church. Doubtless they are not perfect in their doings and sayingswhich of us is?--but that is their pure and unadulterated purpose, to sacrifice themselves in fidelity to the doctrine of the New Church. Instead of being loved and honored for it, as they well deserve to be, this wicked persecution is directed against them by their own brethren of the New Church. It would be wicked even on the ground of its utter want of charity; but the addition to that of deliberate slander makes the wickedness ten-fold more grievous (NEW CHURCH MONTHLY, 1890, p. 57).

The President having requested Mr. Potts to bring the Resolution of the Conference before the members of his society, in order that they may guard themselves against the pernicious teaching it condemns, and having intimated that the Council of the Conference would take note of any further attempt to identify the New Church with the perversions of NEW CHURCH LIFE (Ibid., p). 56), Mr. Potts replied:

By the publication of your second circular on the subject you have forced me to take action, because you have put me forward before the Church as one who repudiates the teachings of the Academy on the subject of pellicacy, which is tantamount to saying that I repudiate the doctrine of the New Jerusalem on that subject. I will never allow myself to be identified with the repudiation or invalidation, in the smallest degree, of any point in the doctrine of the New Jerusalem. For that doctrine I have lived, and for that doctrine will, if necessary, die. Should I therefore be involved in the vile slander which the Conference has now endorsed and deliberately formulated and encouraged, I tell you at once I fear nothing of that kind on my own account; the only grief I have about it is that the Conference has committed this crime against truth, charity, and the commandments of God. This is, indeed, hard to bear, because it involves the fact that the Conference is ceasing to be of the New Church (Ibid., pp. 57, 58).

The President of the General Conference now found that he could not spare the necessary time required for further discussion of the subject (THE NEW CHURCH MONTHLY, 1890, pp. 55-59).

The General Conference finally, at a special meeting held at Manchester, November 8, 1892, passed a Resolution whereby it altered the Declaration of Faith (which all members of the Conference are required to sign at each meeting) so as to read, I believe in the Word of God, or Holy Scripture, and in the Heavenly Doctrine of the New Jerusalem drawn therefrom, and contained in the Theological Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg,--the insertion of the words drawn therefrom and Theological giving opportunity to deny either that the teachings of CONJUGIAL LOVE are drawn front the Word, or that the book itself is one of the Theological Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

This phrasing was adopted, it seems evident, in pursuance of the attempt which (says the Rev. James F. Buss, in an address delivered January 19 of this same year, 1902) is at this very moment being made to get the Conference Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, and Rules, so phrased that members and Ministers of Conference, when signing the Declaration of Faith at the annual Sessions, WILL NOT, of necessity, in future, pledge themselves to a belief in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE. (See MORNING LIGHT for 1892, pp. 464-467), and also an able discussion by the Rev. J. F. Buss in his article on The Canonicity of CONJUGIAL LOVE, published in his volume entitled THE STAR OF THE EAST. (London, 1908, pp. 151-2.)

8.

THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ACADEMY.

During the next five or six years little was heard of the controversy; but in the meantime important events had taken place in the history of the New Church. While the Academy, as an institution, had never been organically connected with the General Convention, most of the members of the Academy were at the same time members of the General Church of Pennsylvania (formerly the Pennsylvania Association), which was an integral part of the General Convention. For many years there had been a state of internal discord between these two bodies, not only as to the attitude toward the Writings of the New Church, but also as to ecclesiastical government and policy. The Convention repeatedly interfered with the internal affairs of the General Church of Pennsylvania, notwithstanding the Constitution of the larger body, which guaranteed freedom of self-government to the component State Associations.

The Convention finally, in 1890, refused to receive the annual Report of the General Church, whereupon the latter body, in November of the same year, severed its connection with the Convention on the ground that

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. (Preamble to the Resolution effecting the severance of the General Church from the Convention, published in NEW CHURCH LIFE, 1891, p. 25.)

After this separation had been effected, the General Church entered upon an era of internal development, attended with many struggles, resulting finally in the friends of the Academy movement organizing themselves, in the year 1897, into a new ecclesiastical body known as the General Church of the New Jerusalem. This movement was hailed with pleasure by the leaders of the General Convention, who supposed it betokened some kind of repudiation of the principles formerly held by the Academy. A friendly attitude was exhibited toward the new body; messengers from the General Convention attended the Assembly of the General Church, in 1898, and messages of good-will were exchanged between the two bodies during the two following years. But the leaders of the Convention had not understood the spirit of the new movement; and when every one of the fundamental truths, for which the Academy had fought from the beginning, was reaffirmed and explained in twelve terse propositions in an address by Bishop Pendleton to the General Assembly held at Berlin, Ontario, Canada, on June 30 to July 4, 1899, the affirmation served before long to renew the conflict. In this address (which was printed in NEW CHURCH LIFE for 1899, pp. 117-120, and afterwards published as a pamphlet under the title, THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ACADEMY), the Bishop stated as the eighth proposition:

The laws, in the latter part of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, extending from n. 444 to 476, inclusive, are laws of order, given for the freedom and preservation of the conjugial (p. 118).

And this was further amplified by the statement that

The work on CONJUGIAL LOVE is a Divine Revelation, given for the use of the New Church. All the truths in this work, from beginning to end, whether concerning marriage, its opposite, or the things intermediate, are laws of Divine Wisdom, given of Divine Mercy, to heal and restore; to bring back and establish conjugial love, as the fundamental of the life of Heaven in the Church. To deny the Divinity of any part of the work on CONJUOIAL LOVE, is a denial of the Lord Himself in His Second Coming (p. 119).

The address as a whole met with no seriously unfavorable comment. TIIE NEW CHURCH MESSENGER, indeed, in its issue of January 17, 1900, criticized it mildly; but rather questioned its form than its substance. No comment whatever was made on the paragraph above quoted.

9.

PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE ACADEMY.

During this same year, 1900, Mrs. S---, a member of the Boston Society, undertook a crusade against the Academy, because of its use, in this connection, of the term laws of order. The Rev. James Reed, the General Pastor of the Massachusetts Association, sought to induce Mrs. S to desist; but she persisted. The results of her efforts are related in the following letter, opening a correspondence between Mr. need and Bishop Pendleton, which is given in full below:

MR. REED TO MR. PENDLETON.

12 Louisburg Square,

Boston, Mass., Mar. 29, 1900.

My dear Mr. Pendleton: A lady member of the New Church in this vicinity, who accepts as true all that Swedenborg has taught in his theological writings, including both parts of CONJUGIAL LOVE, has brought to the attention of two of our ministers the eighth article in your statement of principles made at the late meeting of the General Church at Berlin, Canada.

She claimed to speak for at least twenty others beside herself, and her appeal was made with so much urgency against what she understood to be your view of the subject, that one of the two with whom she conversed felt it to be his duty to bring the matter before the Committee of Ministers of the Massachusetts Association. It was there discussed at considerable length,--not with the feeling that we have any such formal relationship with you as would give us a right of remonstrance, or even of inquiry; but as New Church brethren, having like interest with you in our common cause, and in all that concerns its general welfare. In this spirit the subject was discussed, and in this spirit we came to a common conclusion to confer with you in a friendly way, and see whether the terms in which you expressed your understanding of the doctrine may not convey, at least to some minds, a view of it which you did not intend, and whether it might not be expressed in a way which would so exactly utter the teaching of the Writings as to do no violence to the belief of any who accept them as a revelation. For the purpose of such friendly conference, a subcommittee, consisting of the Rev. S. M. Warren, Rev. John A. Hayes and myself, was appointed to write you on the subject.

Perhaps we cannot better begin than by a statement of our own understanding of what the Writings teach respecting fornication and concubinage,--that you may see whether, and how nearly, our understanding of it accords with your own. Our chief difficulty lies in your unqualified assertion that the principles set forth in the Writings on these subjects are laws of order. In a sense this may be true, though me do not know of any passage in the Writings where it is so declared. But the ministers of this Association are unanimous in understanding that such a statement needs to be qualified in order to prevent its being misleading. We hold that the above-named principles are laws or order only in the sense in which the laws of permission are laws of the Divine Providence (D. P. 234); for it is declared (C. L. 452) that fornication, because it is lust, and of the natural man not yet purified, is evil; and the whole argument of the sections on fornication and concubinage is to show that, as lighter forms of evil, and in their lighter forms, they are permitted,--but only when necessary to prevent the doing of evils that are more grievous, and destructive of the conjugial. Is not this your view also? If it is, would it not be better to use some other expression than laws of order with respect to those subjects? For, surely, there is a difference between the laws of order as they are in themselves and the laws which are only permissions on account of the natural and evil states of men.

Having made this statement of the ease, I will only add that I hope you will be ready to reply to our letter in the spirit in which it is written. We should much prefer to agree with you, if we can, than to disagree.

We stand together with you on the platform of entire loyalty to the doctrines of the New Church made known through Swedenborg, as a new revelation from God out of heaven. And on this common platform we have confidence that yen, not less than we, will wish to guard against any such defective statement or misunderstanding of important doctrines as might lead to a perversion of them.

With kind regards, I am, on behalf of my brother-ministers,

Sincerely yours,

 (Signed) JAMES REED.

MR. PENDLETON TO MR. REED.

(Bryn Athyn) May 9th, 1900.

Dear Mr. Reed: I would ask you first to pardon the long delay in answering your communication of March 29th, which, on account of absence from home and other causes I have not been able to take up for consideration earlier.

You ask in respect to the eighth article of the statement of the Principles of the Academy, which I presented in my annual address to our Assembly in Berlin last year, whether the terms in which you expressed your (my) understanding of the doctrine may not convey, at least to some minds, a view of it which you (I) did not intend, and whether it might not be expressed in a way which would so exactly utter the teaching of the Writings, as to do no violence to the belief of any who accept them as a revelation. You say also that Our chief difficulty lies in your (my) unqualified assertion that the principles set forth in the Writings on these subjects are laws of order. This statement in your opinion, needs to be qualified in order to prevent its being misleading. And you present as your view that they are laws of order only in the sense in which the laws of permission are laws of the Divine Providence, as stated in DIVINE PROVIDENCE, 234; in support of which you quote CONJUGIAL LOVE, 452, as teaching that fornication, because it is lust, and of the natural man not yet purified, is evil. I understand your position therefore to be, that because the thing itself is lust and evil, the laws which govern it cannot properly be called laws of order, except in a very modified sense.

I think that the number you refer to (D. P. 234) establishes clearly the fact that the laws of the permission of evil are laws of Divine Order, since they are laws of Divine Providence; and so I am unable to see that the teaching in DIVINE PROVIDENCE, 234, at all modifies the position which one may rightly hold, that the laws of the permission of evil are laws of order. The teaching would be the same, if it were read as follows: The laws of permission are laws of Divine Order. This is taught in DIVINE PROVIDENCE, 331, where are these words, It may also be said that the Lord is Providence, as it is said that God is order; for the Divine Order is the Divine Providence, primarily respecting the salvation of men.

It will be seen from this that the phrase Divine Order is most appropriate, when the subject is respecting those things which are in disorder and are to be brought into order. I hold, therefore, that all the laws which govern hell,--among them the laws of the permission of evil,--are laws of order. These laws are all Divine, since it is the Lord Himself who governs hell, and He does this by and according to His own law. Evil, indeed, is all that is contrary to Divine Order, but the laws which govern it and those which lead man out of it, are laws of order. There is order also in hell (A. C. 6370), brought about by the operation of the laws of order.

I cannot therefore see my way clear to modify or qualify the language to which you refer, namely, that the laws in CONJUGIAL LOVE, 444-476, are laws of order, given for the freedom and preservation of the conjugial; since the very object of those laws is to bring man into order, and the laws which bring him into order are themselves laws of order. To say that they are not laws of order is to say that they are not Divine laws, that the teaching is not Divine teaching, not a Divine Revelation.

Your reference to DIVINE PROVIDENCE, 234, brings up, however, what I regard the real point at issue, namely, that the fornication and concubinage spoken of in CONJUGIAL LOVE, 444-476, are evil in the same sense that the word evil is used in DIVINE PROVIDENCE, 234, and elsewhere in the Writings where the permission of evil is spoken of. I think in this we come to the root of the matter, or the root of the difference between us. I shall, therefore, address myself briefly to this point.

I believe it will be admitted, that where the permission of evil is spoken of, confirmed evil is meant, evil conjoined with its own falsity, evil of sin. That there is evil not of sin, such as is with children and some adults, mill also be admitted; for the Writings teach this, and it is confirmed by experience. If it should be said that evil not of sin comes also under the law of permission, I should say in reply that this is true in a most general sense, and yet, specifically considered it is not true. For evil not of sin is neither good nor evil, bat intermediate, out of which man may be led to good, or may turn to evil which is the evil of sin.

That there are degrees between the good which is provided, and the evil which is permitted, is taught in ARCANA COELESTIA, 9940, where it is said that those things which are from the Lord, are nearer or more remotely from Him, and are said to be from His will, from good pleasure, from leave, and from permission. Those things which are of good pleasure and of leave are intermediate, and in them somewhere comes the evil not of sin, such as that with children, with the simple in the Christian world, and with upright, Gentiles.

So far, I believe you will agree with me, and the issue will therefore be as to the placing of fornication and concubinage limited to one; for, of course, there is no question about that which is unlimited, this being under the evils of sin which are permitted because they cannot be prevented according to order, but which the regenerating man is not to permit to himself. To class, however, the former with the latter, would be to do violence both to reason and revelation; and yet this is done in the New Church.

I will state my view of the matter without attempting to establish it here, that limited fornication and concubinage of the kind spoken of in CONJUGIIAL LOVE, 444-476, come under those things which are of leave; that while it is evil, it is not evil of sin like adultery and whoredom, but that it is intermediate between conjugial and scortatory love; and where the end of the conjugial is present, it becomes a means of leading away from that which is of hell to that which is of heaven. I would call your attention also to the quotation which you make from CONJUGIAL LOVE, 452, where it is said that fornication is of the natural man not yet purified, which shows that it is a state looking to the conjugial; and I would add that this number (452),--read without prejudgment or bias,--states fully the position which I hold and which has always been held by the Academy.

I find myself, therefore, unable to subscribe to your opinion that they are laws of order only in the sense in which the laws of permission are laws of the Divine Providence, for subscribing to this would in my mind be subscribing to the view that those acting under these laws are ipso facto in a state that is damnable or unsalvable, which would amount to a condemnation of the laws themselves which have been given by Divine Revelation.

It seems to me most important that this question should he considered fairly and squarely, that a just view should be taken of it by the members of the New Church, uninfluenced by Puritan standards of life; for much more is involved in it than the mere leave given to certain men to do certain things; for that which is involved is the very freedom of the conjugial itself, and thus the existence of the conjugial, in the New Church; and this even though but few avail themselves of the leave that is given. Those few must be protected, and not be classed as sinful and vile, worse than other men, unfit for human society and the Church. I believe that such a state of accusation is far worse than the state condemned, a state in which a true perception of the conjugial appears to be lacking (C. L. 444).

I am glad, therefore, to see in your letter a disposition to consider the question fairly, and I wish to thank you for the courteous manner in which you have approached me on the subject.

There is not room in the limits of a single letter to go fully into this question, but I shall be glad to discuss it further with you, if such be your desire.

With expressions of personal regard to you and the members of your committee, I remain

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. F. PENDLETON.

MR. REED TO MR. PENDLETON.

June 25, 1900.

My dear Mr. Pendleton: It was not till today that I had an opportunity of reading your letter of May 9 to our Committee of Ministers. They desire me to express their appreciation of your courteous reply. But, as it came at the end of a busy meeting, there was no opportunity for discussing it, and the further consideration of the subject was necessarily postponed to some future time. Our ministers will not meet again until October.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) JAMES REED.

Mr. Reeds desire for conference seems, from the sequel, to have undergone a change, for he did not again take up the subject with the Bishop. Mr. Reed admits in the first letter of this correspondence that it was possible to understand the term laws of order, in a sense which would include the principles laid clown in these paragraphs of CONJUGIAL LOVE. There is thus forced upon us the question whether the grievous misunderstandings which were rife, and which were diligently spread abroad, might not have been altogether prevented, had Mr. Reed and the other ministers of the Massachusetts Association taken pains to explain to those who brought to them their complaints on this ground how the phrase, in the connection in which it was employed, might be understood in a way which would relieve it of offense.* But so far as has come to our knowledge no attempt to do this was made. Instead of this, misrepresentations were made by ministers as well as by laymen. From the beginning and throughout it was insisted that the phrase meant that which the writer did not intend and which over and over again it was explained that he did not intend.

When the Rev. W. H. Alden suggested that the words need not be understood in the malign sense charged against them so industriously, a leading minister of the Convention, the Rev. J. C. Ager, returned the answer, evidently regarded as all-sufficient, Then you hold the Academy position.

*Cf. p. 39, et seq.

10.

THE DECOY LETTERS.

The propaganda was carried on vigorously, and without too much scruple as to means. A large number of copies of THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ACADEMY were purchased and used for purposes which developed later on. Mrs. S corresponded with ministers in various states, and personally visited several ministers. Decoy letters were resorted to in the hope of drawing forth from the Bishop of the General Church expressions which might be used in a campaign against the Academy.

These letters are given here in full, and tell their own story:

PERSONAL. April 17th, 1901.

My dear Bishop: I have sent to you during the past two years for a good many copies of THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ACADEMY. I now desire to ask your advice in regard to some very personal and private questions that I have to solve in regard to my own life.

Several years ago I lost two babies, one after the other, and since the death of the last one I have been an invalid and unable to give my husband the right of my person. Under these circumstances do you think that from the doctrines of Swedenborg I should be justified and right in giving my consent to my husbands having a concubine? My husband is not a Swedenborgian.

I shall be very grateful for a reply.

Yours,

Cambridge, Mass. (Signed) E-- P. S--.

The following is a copy of the reply sent by Bishop Pendleton.

Huntingdon Valley, Pa., April 22d, 1901.
MRS. E--- P. S-----.

My dear Madam: Your letter of the 17th has been on hand for several days, and will you please pardon my inability to answer earlier. I wish to thank you to begin with for the confidence you manifest in consulting me, a stranger, on a matter so important to your life and welfare; and in attempting to answer your question, I am aware that I am undertaking a serious responsibility, especially as I know so little of the facts, conditions, modifying circumstances, etc., which surround you, not knowing personally either you or your husband. But even if I knew much, I could go no further than to give general principles as I see them; the responsibility of particular application resting, and must always rest, with the individual. In regard to the attitude of a wife in such a case, I would say that she may not consent, but she may permit; which latter means that she will leave her husband free to act according to his own judgment. This is, I think, as far as it is necessary for her to go; and I think covers the question which you ask. As to what may guide a husband in forming his judgment, is another matter.

If I can be of any further service to you, please feel free to call upon me.

Very sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. F. PENDLETON.

The husband of Mrs. S---- then wrote:

Cambridge, Oct. 17, 1901.
REV. W. F. PENDLETON.

Dear Sir: Last spring my wife wrote to you asking your opinion upon a question of great importance to us, and you kindly replied. In reading over your reply, I cannot but feel that to me you might be willing to explain your views more fully than to my wife, therefore I take the liberty of writing to you. Although not a member of the New Church, many of the views held by that body deeply interest me. In your reply to my wifes questions, you said, A wife may not consent, but she may permit. Do you mean by this that a wife may not consent because she should have no voice in the matter, or because it mould be unlawful for her to consent, or unwise for her to do so?

I would he greatly obliged if you would let me know what you believe to be Swedenborgs teaching regarding the questions I ask, as interpreted by the Academy which you represent.

If a wife were not able to give her husband the right of her person, on account of ill health or from other causes, would he be justified in having a mistress or concubine?

What position should a wife take toward a mistress, and is the spiritual welfare of a mistress necessarily jeopardized by performing such a use as I suggest? Should a New Church man seek a mistress in or out of the Church?

Is it necessary for a man to acquaint his wife with the fact of his having a mistress, if he feels that the knowledge would greatly pain her?

Does the Academy in its understanding of Swedenborgs writings, consider that a mans health or spiritual growth would be impaired, without the physical expression of conjugial love?

What sections of Swedenborgs writings do you think, throw light on this subject?

I hope I am not taking too much liberty in writing thus at length to you, and if you desire to answer this letter, please do so at your own convenience.

Yours truly,

Cambridge, Mass. (Signed) C-- E. S.

To this letter no reply was returned. May 23d of the following year, 1902, the Bishop wrote a final letter:

May 23rd, 1902.
MRS. E---- P. S.---

Madam: This is to notify you that on account of information just received* I consider myself discharged from all obligation to treat your communication of April 17, 1901, as a private letter.

Respectfully yours,

(Signed) W. F. PENDLETON.

* See p. 36.

11.

THE WOMENS PETITION.

The outcome of all this propaganda was a petition, signed by about one hundred and fifty persons, most of them women, and hence popularly called The Womens Petition, which was brought to the Convention at its meeting in Philadelphia in May, 1902.

Philadelphia was not disposed to be hospitable to such a firebrand. Pennsylvania had been the center of the Academy conception, growth, and strength. The Pennsylvania Association, under the leadership of Mr. Benade, had been its stronghold.

The new Pennsylvania Association was chiefly made up of the Philadelphia First Society, a body emphatic in its opposition to Academy ideas. The two bodies had for many years been ecclesiastically and socially separated from each other. It was felt among the leaders of the First Society that upon the maintenance of this separation depended the peace and welfare of the Church. The possibility of a clash, involved in the bringing up of the subject of the Academy in any public way in Philadelphia, was by all means to be avoided. But how should this be done? Some of the ministers and members of the General Church had attended the preceding Convention in Brooklyn. With Convention in Philadelphia, and the members of the Academy in ignorance of the Womens Petition, the friendly attendance might be largely increased. And the Convention was asked to pronounce formal and emphatic condemnation on the Academy.

The situation was embarrassing. No official action was taken to meet it; but an individual effort was made to shield both Convention and Academy from possible consequences.

On the morning of May 20, 1902, the opening day of the Council of Ministers, a visit was paid to Bryn Athyn by the Rev. Samuel M. Warren, a gentleman whose friendship and respect for the members of the Academy was well known. He came, to use his own words, upon the most humiliating mission of my life. This was to inform the Academy of the Womens Petition. This petition, he stated, had been presented by Mrs. E. P. S.---, who, on April 17, had written to Mr. Pendleton a decoy letter (Mr. Warrens own expression), alleging conditions which did not exist. Mr. Warren severely condemned the outrageous conduct of Mrs. S-----, and explained that she had visited several New Church Societies, used Mr. Pendletons answer to excite animosity against the Academy, and had succeeded in getting about seventy signatures to her petition. He added that some of the ministers had informally decided to grant the Petition by refusing the courtesies of the Convention to members of the Academy.

The object of his visit--unofficially approved of by Messrs. Seward and need--was to forewarn the members of the Academy. The petitioners were determined to bring to the Convention an attack on the Academy, and he suggested that the members of that body refrain from attending, both to save themselves from possible insult, and the Convention from disrepute before the world.

In this indirect, backstairs fashion, one aim of the petitioners was accomplished. The friendly intercourse which hail hopefully begun was, with threat of insult, cut off. This action was irrevocably taken, without consideration by either the Convention or the Council of Ministers and without even the official knowledge of these bodies.

The next step was to arrange that nothing should transpire in the open meeting of the Convention to indicate what was going on behind the scenes. The Womens Petition was neither read in the Convention, nor published. The consideration of it was had behind closed doors and by the ministers alone. The petition itself as reported by a member of the Council, though not in exact words, reads as follows:

The Petitioners, believing, first (1), that the Academy of the New Church in its published views of its Principles, accepts the statements of Nos. 444 to 476 in the work on SCORTATORY LOVE, as laws of order for the preservation of the Conjugial; and, second (2), in declaring that a denial of these laws as of order is a denial of the Lord in His Second Coming--the same permitting a laxity of conduct, and being detrimental to the good standing of the Church; ask

That the Council recommend to the members of the Convention to abstain from all formal fraternal relations with the members of the General Church of the New Jerusalem,--and to

Request from a representative committee a formal and explicit expression as to what it believes to be the teachings of the New Church on this subject.

In the Council of Ministers there appeared concern for two things: First, to prevent the matter of the Petition becoming known, or any action being taken concerning it in open meeting; and, Second, to postpone the evil day of the actual consideration of the questions which it involved.

Some slight attempt was made to take up and discuss the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE by one or two of the younger men. The Rev. W. H. Alden urged that the issue be squarely faced then and there. His doing this invited the private comment of one of the older ministers: Mr. Alden wishes us all to put our necks into the noose. There was no stomach for the consideration of the main question at that time. Nevertheless, something had to be done, and the Council appointed two committees, one consisting of five ministers, to define the teachings contained in the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE; and the other of three ministers, to recommend what action, if any, should be taken as to the attitude of the Convention toward the Academy and the General Church. The Council then took a long breath and waited.

The next meeting of the General Convention and Council of Ministers was held in Chicago, in June, 1903. At this meeting the Council, after protracted discussion, adopted A RESOLUTION AND REPORT, which was distributed throughout the Church as an answer to the request of the Womens Petition. This document is more fully referred to on another page (see p. 69, seq.)

12.

THE RESOLUTION AND REPORT.

The RESOLUTION AND REPORT was sent to the ministers of the Convention with an accompanying circular, in which it was said: The action of the Council is not intended in any way to limit the freedom of individual study,* but it is hoped that the treatment of the subject in the REPORT, especially the emphasis laid upon the saving power of the Lord in relation to this evil, may be found helpful.

* See p. 437, seq.

Later history, pointed by the evidence of Mr. Worcester at the Engard Trial,* would seem to tell a different story as to the freedom of individual study.

* See p. 437, seq.

A copy of the RESOLUTION AND REPORT was sent to Bishop Pendleton, and the following correspondence ensued:

MR. WORCESTER TO MR. PENDLETON.

Seal Harbor, Maine,
July 20, 1903.
REV. W. F. PENDLETON.

My dear Sir: I hope my writing may not seem to you rude or meddlesome. It is wholly unofficial and is prompted only by the hope of being of some small service.

The inclosed report and letter show you how the Ministers Council of the Convention has dealt with the subject which was brought before it by petitioners a year ago. You will see that the position taken is wholly impersonal, and attempts to deal only with principles without accusing or attempting to judge of anyone. It may be useful to you to know what we have done.

As I listened to the discussion of the subject by the ministers, I was led to think that perhaps your words laws of order, as applied to the passages of CONJUGIAL LOVE in question, may be generally understood in a way different from that intended by you--as meaning substantially laws applicable to the normal and orderly development of a young man. I think your words are open to this understanding, and that they are generally so understood, and that inferences drawn from them become facts in the minds of some persons. We have not attempted in our report to interpret your words or to say what your belief or the practice of the General Church is; but I am grieved to think that you may be misunderstood, and if it is so, I wish that you might yourself find means to make your position more clear and to guard against false interpretations and inferences.

I hope I have not said what I should not, and I trust you will believe that it is from no bad intent.
Respectfully yours,
(Signed) WM. L. WORCESTER.

MR. PENDLETON TO MR. WORCESTER.

July 28, 1903.
REV. WILLIAM L. WORCESTER.

My dear Sir: I have before me your communication of July 20th, which came a few days ago, together with a printed REPORT and circular letter issued on behalf of the Council of Ministers of the General Convention, in respect to a subject brought before it by certain petitioners a year ago.

I wish to thank you for the REPORT and circular, which I have read with interest; I wish also to thank you for the good-will, expressed in your desire to be of some service in opening the way for the clearing up of what you speak of as a possible misunderstanding of the position held by the body which I represent, on the question involved in the action of the Council.

You also suggest the hope that I may find means to make my position more clear as to what I meant by the expression, laws of order, as applied to certain passages in the latter part of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE; since what I said, as you consider, is subject to misunderstanding, and has been misunderstood by some persons.

In respect to this I would say that I do not see my way clear at present to say more than I have said in the past in explanation of my meaning in using the words alluded to. The fear of being misunderstood does not present an honorable incentive to action, and it is my belief that those who are willing to understand will not misinterpret my words; and as for those who are not willing, or who may willfully pervert my purpose and intent as expressed in plain, simple, and direct language,--in presenting certain teachings of the Heavenly Doctrines,--my duty is performed I think when I leave them in the hands of the Divine Providence, with the hope that they may be led in time to repent of the injury they have done to the cause of innocence and truth.

I am pleased not to place you, my dear sir, and other honorable men of the Convention among this latter class of persons; and I would only suggest that the burden is upon you, and not upon us, to remove misunderstanding, where it may exist with the well-disposed, among the members of the New Church within your sphere of action. For, indeed, until the law of charity and mutual good-will becomes active, until freedom of speech is acknowledged, until liberty of interpretation and even of disagreement in matters of doctrine and application--without attributing evil motive or immoral act,--until this comes about and is established, it cannot be said that the New Church has fairly begun upon the earth.

There are those, I am sure, who honestly differ from us, in our understanding of certain of the teachings in the latter part of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, and there are those, I regret to say, who are not only not willing to allow any latitude of interpretation, but who are ready to ascribe all manner of evil to those who stand faithfully for what they believe to be the teaching of the Lord in His Second Coming, when this happens to present a divergence from the standards which they have raised for themselves.

I am speaking of facts that are familiar to you, and you will pardon me for referring to them, which I feel bound to do, since in them is found the reason why I do not at this time feel disposed to accede to the invitation contained in your letter;

believing as I do that those who willfully misunderstand and misinterpret, will continue to do so, no matter what is said, or how much is said in reply or explanation, so long as their state remains what it is; a state that can only be changed from the other world, and not by any human effort in this.

I am glad to acknowledge that the Council of Ministers by its action in declining to accede to the request of the petitioners, has left open a way for future amity and good will; and that this will surely come about in time, with all those wire love the Heavenly Doctrine, and are loyal to its teaching, I think cannot be doubted.

Again thanking you for your communication, and the inclosed documents, I remain

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. F. PENDLETON.

MR. WORCESTER TO MR. PENDLETON

Aug. 6, 1903.
REV. W. F. PENDLETON.

My dear Sir: Your letter of July 28 was duly received, and I wish to thank you for your kind reception of the REPORT and of my letter. I must at the same time express my deep regret that you feel that your published words must stand without change or explanation. Experience has shown that they are open to an interpretation which to me and to many others seems contrary to the essential principles and spirit of the New Church. You suggest that the burden is upon us to remove misunderstanding of your words. I can say that I hope they do not mean, or that I cannot believe that they mean, what they are understood to mean: that the numbers in question apply to persons who have the spiritual light and help which belong to Christian men, and that they apply even to members of the New Church,--in fact that they describe a phase of orderly development. I can hope that you do not mean this, and can refuse to believe that you mean it, but it seems to me that it must rest with you to say what you do mean and what you do not mean, and that while people are left in doubt of your meaning the door is left open to the worst interpretation.

You also appeal to the law of charity, and the same appeal has been made by others. The thought seems to be that we ought to be wiping to associate with and work with men who believe themselves to be New Churchmen, no matter what they teach or what life they encourage, or that we should do so in the dark, not knowing what the faith and life is which others stand for. I cannot understand the law of charity so. It seems to me that charity requires that for those who are dependent upon us and who look to us for guidance, we should discriminate as clearly as we can between truth and falsity, good and evil, and should so far as it is in our power protect them from falsity and evil.

I hope I have not said too much in expressing my regret at the position taken by your letter. I feared that if I remained silent it would seem like acquiescence in your suggestions, that the burden is upon us to remove misunderstanding of your words, and that charity would overlook differences even where a question of truth or falsity, good or evil, is involved. I cannot feel that either of these suggestions is just.

Respectfully yours,

(Signed) WILLIAM L. WORCESTER.

MR. PENDLETON TO MR. WORCESTER.

September 8, 1903.
REV. W. L. WORCESTER.

My dear Sir: Your letter of August 6th came while was away from home, and since my return have not been able to answer it earlier. I regret to say that this letter does not make a pleasant impression upon my mind, such as was made by your former letter. Your words now indicate that you are disposed to put an evil construction upon my published words, unless I make it clear in a public explanation that there is no evil intent or purpose in them; for otherwise, as you sap, the door is left open to the worst interpretation. Why should a door be left open to the worst interpretation? My language is plain, simple, and direct; I say that the teachings in two chapters in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE contain laws of order for the preservation of the conjugial. Why should the worst interpretation be put upon this language? It is simply because there are those who imagine that we believe in and practice the worst evils, and make use of these chapters for justification and excuse. In other words, that me believe in and practice free love; that is, seduction and adultery, making a cloak of the holy things of the Church for this purpose. This I know is said of us, and the term worst which you use, carries to me no other meaning. And you therefore inform me in effect that unless I come forth and declare that we do not favor and put into practice these worst evils, that this worst interpretation will continue to be put upon my language; that is, members of the Convention will continue to think that we are in the practice of the worst evils of the Decalogue.

In addition to this, you refuse what you characterize as an appeal to the law of charity on my part, and say that you cannot understand the law of charity to mean that me ought to be willing to associate with and work with men who believe themselves to be New Churchmen no matter what they teach or what life they encourage.

This shows clearly what you mean when you say that the door is left open to the worst interpretation of my words, namely, that we are outside of the pale of the operation of the law of charity, because we teach false doctrine and encourage evil of life, and therefore you are not willing to associate and work with us, even though me believe ourselves to be New Churchmen, unless we stand up and declare that we do not teach and practice the wicked things that are charged against us. It does not seem to occur to you that if we were capable of the enormous evils alleged, we would also be capable of all manner of lying, in order to cover and conceal them, and that a declaration of innocence from such a source would carry with it no weight,--or perhaps it has occurred to you.

And further, you evidently understand the terms of my letter to indicate an appeal, or the expression of a desire, for closer association and work than now exists between your body and the General Church; and you mean to inform me that this is not possible until we take steps to allow that we are worthy of such association. In respect to this I wish to say that I did mean to imply that such closer association is in itself desirable, but that it cannot take place so long as the law of charity is largely wanting in practice, carrying with it a lamentable suppression of freedom of speech, in your body.

And you put forth as the one condition of further fraternal relation, that I should say that the falsifications and perversions of my words are not true; that I should publicly declare our innocence of the evil things that are said about us. On the other hand I present as the one condition, that lying and slander and wicked insinuation must stop before I shall speak upon this question to others than the members of our own body.

And any threat that the door will continue to be left open to the worst interpretation, and that the common law of charity will not be exercised toward us, will not force me to deviate from this decision.

The words used in my address were understood by the body addressed, and my concern or responsibility does not extend further. But you are calling upon me to address others, who are outside of our body, and explain to them what I meant. I do not consider this to be in the line of my duty. This duty belongs to others,--not to explain my words, that is of but little consequence,--but to teach and lead to the laws of charity as given in the Writings of the New
Church.

And although the appeal to the law of charity appears to be distasteful, I still assert that if there were charity and good will, there would be no misunderstanding, and no door left open to the worst interpretation; nor would we be called upon to stand up and apologize or explain that we do not believe in and practice enormous evils.

To speak in plain words we are misunderstood because the truth itself is misunderstood, and because there is ill will against us; and I confess a positive disinclination toward making any explanation whatever to such a state. Let them read the Writings and remove their misunderstanding of them first of all. If this be done there will be no need of any statement from me.

Respectfully yours,

(Signed) W. F. PENDLETON.

MR. SEWARD TO MR. PENDLETON.

New York City,

Aug. 15th, 1903.
REV. WILLIAM F. PENDLETON,
Bishop of the General Church,
Bryn Athyn, Pa.

My dear Brother: The Rev. William L. Worcester has informed me that he has sent to you a copy of the RESOLUTION AND REPORT adopted, at the late meeting in Chicago, by the Council of Ministers of the General Convention, in reply to a certain petition presented to it the year before at Philadelphia, and has kindly shown me your reply.*

* This, of course, refers to the bishops first letter on page 39.

I write, not in an official, but in my individual capacity, to beg you to make some statement on the subject, as I understand him to have suggested. As it now stands your statement that the teaching in Nos. 444 to 476, of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, are laws of order for the preservation of the conjugial (I quote from memory), is misunderstood, and I fear will be misunderstood as long as they stand in just this form. I think I understand your position. You do not mean, I suppose, to say that they are laws of order provided from the beginning for the preservation of the conjugial in man, but laws of permission that may be regarded as laws of order so far as our attitude toward the man of the world, outside the pale of a living Christianity, is concerned; but not applicable, as I understand your earnest protest, against certain misinterpretations that have been circulated to imply, to the members of the General Church, or to any other body of truly Christian men. I think, my dear brother, that if you could make some clear and unmistakable statement like this, it would go far to settle the question in the minds of all who have been disturbed. No one can regret more than I do the personal element that has been introduced into the subject. I think you greatly overrate its importance. I can sap for myself, and I think for the majority of my brethren in the Convention, that we have not allowed these scandals to influence our judgment. We have taken up the subject because we have thought the published declaration* with regard to the laws of order was misleading to most, or to many persons, and not from any disposition to judge or condemn our brethren.

I am sure that if you could in some way recognize our action and set the matter right, as I feel you can, without reference to any personal misrepresentations that have been set afloat, and for the sake of the peace and harmony of the Church at large, it would be useful.

* THE PRINCIPLES OF THE ACADEMY.

But I hope, my brother, that you and the General Church will be able to go further than this. I hope that you mill sea your way, not only to explain what has been open to misunderstanding in the past, but to adopt substantially the ground taken by the Council of Ministers in the REPORT. This, it seems to me, is the only true ground. It will not only satisfy all the elements of the Church in its two largest general bodies, but will disarm the criticisms of the world. In the light of this doctrine of the saving power of the Lord, made so clear and strong in the Writings of the New Church, and illustrated in the lives of so many of our people, we can convince men that the New Church does not stand for license of any kind either in her teaching or practice. I commend it most earnestly to your consideration, and to the consideration of all the members of the General Church, and assure you that a clear and frank recognition of it will do more to remove prejudices and make the Church what it ought to be,--one fold having one Shepherd,--than any other single act that I can now imagine. We shall then stand together as one body, notwithstanding differences of interpretation and organization, in that supreme acknowledgment of the Lord as Savior and Helper that will carry with it that full acknowledgment of the authority of the Writings for which you plead so earnestly.

I trust that you will not attribute this letter to any spirit of interference on my part. I write it, as one brother to another, in the hope that it may lead to Chat perfect and full understanding on this interesting subject in the whole Church, that I believe the REPORT has created in the Convention, and with a full and confident hope of such a result. Trusting that this may be its effect, I am, my dear brother,

Yours in the Church,

(Signed) S. S. Seward

MR. PENDLETON TO MR. SEWARD.

Sept. 9, 1903.
REV. S. S. SEWARD.

My dear Sir and Brother: Absence from home and other causes have prevented my answering earlier your letter of August 15th. I wish to thank you for the kind and friendly manner in which you have couched the request contained in your letter, and I am ready to believe, from what I know of you, that you have a genuine concern in this matter, and a sincere desire that misunderstandings may be removed;

and I would that I could see my way clear to respond to your request so kindly worded and expressed, but under the conditions which exist I do not feel myself free to do so, and must wait until the indications of Providence point in the direction you indicate.

You have seen my reply to Mr. Worcesters first letter, and I inclose a copy of my reply to his second, from which you will readily see that I am not pleased with his second letter to me, and that it only serves to make me adhere more closely to the position I hare taken in declining to speak upon this subject at the present time.

Mr. need wrote me a friendly letter not long after the appearance of my address, and asked a question as to what I meant by the laws of order, etc. I made to him in reply what I regarded at the time a full and satisfactory answer to his question. I did this because I respected Mr. Reed, and because at that time no slanders or misunderstandings were active against us, so far as I knew. But now I propose to wait until slander and misrepresentation cease, and until such time as the Convention will not find it necessary to wait a whole year to consider and make up its mind whether or not it would join in putting the stamp of vile slander upon a body of innocent men and women. That it finally refused to accede to the request of the petitioners is a matter for rejoicing,-- not as that refusal affects us, but as it affects the Convention itself. For when we see a man or body of men hesitate between right and wrong, we may rejoice when the right way is chosen. A formal resolution, indeed, to invite the members of another body to take part in deliberations is not of much consequence, and I cannot say that we desire it; but when it involves the fundamental principles of spiritual charity by which alone the New Church is to be founded and built, a fuller and greater meaning attaches itself to such an act than under ordinary circumstances, involving as it did the approval or non-approval of the spirit and purpose of the petitioners. I intrude an opinion on this matter here, as it may be of use for you to know how it is regarded by us; especially since the Convention has taken upon itself the task of revising the work or teaching, or supposed teaching, of another body, and that body being the one which I represent. And it may as well be made plain here that this work of revising as manifested in the printed RESOLUTION AND REPORT, which Mr. Worcester kindly sent me, does not express our understanding of the doctrine in question. I say this much, because my silence may be interpreted as agreement, or as a desire to evade the issue involved, and as your letter is substantially an appeal to us to adopt the view contained in the REPORT.

Peace and harmony in the New Church, which you speak of are above all things desirable; and this may come even where there is a difference in the understanding of doctrines, but it cannot come unless the spirit of truth be present with all concerned.

As the matter stands now, Mr. Worcester virtually says that we roust rise up and say that we are not living in violation of the Sixth Commandment, and that unless me do so, the conclusion is justified that we are. Per contra, we say that while such a demand is made upon us, in addition to vile slanders in circulation,which we do not overrate, as you suggest, for I believe we know more about it than you do, since they are constantly coming to us through various channels,while such a state exists and influences the Convention, and while such a demand is made, our dignity and self-respect, but above all our regard for the integrity of the truth itself, will not permit us to speak.

There is something more in this question than that of charity to individuals or persons; within this lack of charity there is lurking a covert denial of the truth itself as taught in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE.

But this letter is already too long, and so I will close here with regards and good wishes to you personally.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. F. PENDLETON.

MR. SEWARD TO MR. PENDLETON.

New York,

Sept. 29, 1903.
REV. W. F. PENDLETON.

Dear Brother: Your letter of the 9th was received in due time, but the cares of removing from my former residence to this have prevented an earlier reply.

I thank you for the friendly expressions it contained with regard to the REPORT of the Council of Ministers of the General Convention and to myself personally. Such expressions ought to be taken for granted among members of the New Church, no matter how much they may differ as to the interpretation of doctrine; but human language is so inadequate to make clear our real views that we have to trust much to the charity and good will of our friends, and it is gratifying when we find, as in this case, that we can do so.

In this spirit of mutual forbearance and affection I beg leave to write once more, not only to express my regret that you cannot see your way to explain the expression laws of order, as requested by Mr. Worcester and myself, or to adopt the ground of the REPORT, but to enter briefly into the merits of the subject.

In this connection let me say, that, in my opinion, you misunderstand the intention and tenor of Mr. Worcesters letter, your reply to which you so kindly send me. He sent me a copy of his letter to read, that I might know its contents.

I do not think he meant anything like a threat in it. When he says that without an explanation the door is left open to the worst interpretation, he does not mean that he, or the members of the Convention, will seize it for the purpose of placing the worst interpretation upon it, and so discrediting you or the General Church; but simply that the door would be left open to it, and that some would misunderstand it in future, as has been done in the past.

You state, in the most formal manner, that certain teachings are laws of order for the preservation of the conjugial. Laws of order are generally understood to be laws of Divine order stamped upon the universe by the Lord Himself at the beginning before sin entered into the world, which laws are the outward expression in their application to us of the laws of the Divine life itself. To say that the permissions spoken of in 444 to 476 of CONJUGIAL LOVE are laws of order in this sense is to say, as it seems to some, that the Lord regards fornication and concubinage as orderly even in mans unfallen state; while the truth, as I have supposed, is that these are merely permissions allowed on account of the weakness and fallen condition of human nature. This, taken in connection with the strong position taught some fifteen pears ago in NEW CHURCH LIFE on the subject, which made concubinage as allowable to the ministers as to the laity of the New Church (which is, of course, true if it is allowable at all to those who are instructed in the doctrine of the Lord as taught in the New Church, but which indicates that those who taught it did not fully realize the saving power of the Lord in behalf of men); this has given rise to the worst interpretations that have come to your ears.

As I said in my last letter, I have never supposed that you meant this. I could not admit the possibility of such a supposition. I have strenuously maintained that you did not to all who have spoken to me on the subject. I think, nevertheless, that you have been so interpreted by some, and that you are liable to be so interpreted so long as you allow the statement to stand as it is; especially if it becomes known that you continue to do so after you have been asked to explain it. It is to these interpretations that Mr. Worcester refers as the worst interpretations, and not to the slanders that have reached you from unauthorized sources, and of which you say that I am ignorant. These, I would suggest, are hardly worth your attention. They are probably of the nature of all gossip and tittle-tattle,--the mere repetition by one person as facts of the conjectures, or perhaps idle remarks of another, and are causes of commiseration and pity of those who repeat them, rather than of notice and resentment on our part. But even these interpretations, unfounded though they may be, are injurious to the Church, and would be much more so if they should attract the attention of the outside world, which, as is well known, cannot understand the teachings of CONJUGIAL LOVE on this subject, and which would seize upon these statements as admissions of the worst charges that have been brought against the New Church.

And here let me ask you,--tentatively, for I have never heard anyone suggest such a thing,--if our Old Church friends might not argue that, if the permissions described in CONJUGIAL LOVE, 444 to 476, are laws of order for the preservation of the conjugial, it would not be the duty of every man whose circumstances come within the lines laid down in those passages, to make use of concubinage in order to preserve the conjugial? Of course, you will not understand me as applying any such reduction to absurdity to your position. I mention it only to show you how your statements might be understood, and to explain why it is that Mr. Worcester and I are so anxious that these false interpretations should be explained in the interests of the Church.

And so with regard to what Mr. Worcester says with regard to the law of charity. Mr. Worcester did not mean, as it seems to me, by the words you quote from his last letter, viz.: that he did not understand the law of charity to mean that we ought to be willing to associate and work with men who believe themselves to be New Churchmen no matter what they teach or what life they inculcate, in the sense that he, or any number of the members of the Convention, would read you or your associates out of the Church if you did not rise up and explain that you were not as bad as some people said you were. He had reference, unless I mistake him, not to the scandals that have been set afloat, but to the interpretations that have been made upon your official statements, and meant that such official statements ought to be explained for the sake of the Church. Indeed, he did not say what it seems to me you have mistakenly pot into his mouth. What he said was, The thought seems to be,--that is, the thought of your letter to him, in which you refuse to explain what you mean by laws of order, because there are some who misinterpret your statements,--The thought seems to be that we ought to be willing to associate with and work with men who believe themselves to be New churchmen, no matter what they teach or what life they encourage; or that me should do so in the dark, not knowing what the faith and life is which others stand for. I do not mender that he added, I do not understand the law of charity so. He was speaking, I suppose, not of a supposititious case, but of the actual situation. Your statement about laws of order taken in connection with the declarations of NEW CHURCH LIFE already referred to, had created an impression that you looked upon concubinage as permissible, under certain restrictions, even to those who professed the strictest adherence to the teachings of the Church: though at the same time you deny that you practice such concubinage and resent even the imputation of it.

The around you seemed to take was that the law of charity did not require you to explain your position so long as there was any misunderstanding in the minds of any as to what your position really was. In other words, you refused to explain what some considered open to misconstruction, though without applying any wrong purpose to you, so long as there was an unknown few who put a wrong construction on your teaching. This Mr. Worcester could not understand to be the law of charity. No more can I. It seems to me equivalent to saying that your duty to the whole Church is less important than the attitude of a small and mistaken part of the Church toward you; or, in other words, that you will not exercise the law of charity for the sake of the peace and harmony of the whole body, so long as there is a cantankerous few who do not exercise the law of charity toward you. Your position seems to imply that the laws of charity are rules intended to govern the conduct of others toward us, instead of our conduct toward them. With Mr. Worcester I cannot understand the law of charity so. Your words are evidently open to misunderstanding the fact of your having made an explanation to Mr. Reed some years ago implies. To my mind, if there is one individual who is disturbed by them, you owe it to him to explain: much more when they have been the cause of disturbance in the Church which the ministers of the Convention have had the greatest difficulty in keeping within reasonable bounds, and, as you tell me, of scandals of which I know little and of which you justly complain. I am sorry that there have been such disturbances. I regret exceedingly the unjust aspersions that have been made upon the members of your body. As I have said, I have not allowed them to influence my own judgment. I stand ready to do all in my power to remove them. I have done much, all I could in the past. I recognize cheerfully, and have pointed out often to others, the beautiful home-life to be found in the General Church. But it does seem to me that if we are misunderstood on any vital subject, the fact that me are misunderstood is good reason why me should try to remove it by every legitimate means in our power. It may be true that there are some who will not accept any explanation that may be offered; but I ask it, not for their sake, but for the sake of the Church at large, which will, I am sure, receive it in the right spirit.

But I am not so solicitous about your hesitation to explain what you mean by the laws of order, as by your reception of the REPORT of the Council of Ministers. Speaking of the Convention (by which you mean the Council of Ministers, this matter having saying that never come before the Convention), having undertaken, as you express it, to revise the teaching, or supposed teaching of the body that you represent, you say: It may as well be made plain here that this sort of revising, as manifested in the printed resolution and report which Mr. Worcester kindly sent to me, does not express our understanding of the doctrine in question.

This statement does not seem clear to my mind. Perhaps it is intended to be final, and I might well spare myself the labor of writing again upon the subject. But I am entirely at a loss to understand it, except as a refusal to consider the subject. The essential teaching of the REPORT is that none of the permissions of evil spoken of in the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE are necessary or even allowable to those who believe in the saving power of the Lord; especially to those who understand the Lords saving operations as they are revealed in the spiritual sense of the Word.

Surely, you do not mean to question or deny this. To deny it seems to me to deny that the Lord has come, not once only, but twice; it is to deny that He has met and overcome our enemies, that He holds them in eternal subjection, and that He will give us the victory over them if we will look to Him and shun all evils as sins against Him; in short, it is to deny the whole fabric of the Christian religion, the Word by which it is made known to men, and the Writings wherein the full nature and universal application of that saving power is made clear to our minds; in fact, it is to deny the Lord Himself in His final and crowning revelation of Himself to men as Jesus, or Savior. I cannot believe that you mean to throw the least shadow of doubt upon the reality or availability of this great truth, because to do so would be to weaken and vitiate all your earnest teachings with regard to the doctrines of the Church.

Nor can I believe that you question the application of this truth of the saving presence of the Lord to the members of the New Church. I draw no fine distinction between fornication and concubinage on the one hand, and other forms of impurity on the other, as applied to New Churchmen. I recognize that these forms are less deadly in their effects than the other forms described, and do not, if indulged in under proper restrictions, destroy the conjugial like the others; just as the mild oats that a young man may sow in his youth do not destroy the remains implanted in infancy. But as the wild oats are neither good nor necessary for the young man, so, it seems to me, concubinage is neither necessary nor good for the New Churchman. On the contrary the resort to concubinage must hold conjugial love in abeyance: must weaken its power and lower the moral tone of the individual, while leaving him exposed to greater evils. I hold, therefore, that whatever concessions we may make to the man of the world, or to those men in the Church who cannot rise to a true and lofty apprehension of the subject, the New Church should set before itself and the world nothing less than a life of perfect purity under all circumstances. Certainly those who have a full understanding and a realizing sense of the saving presence and power of the Lord ought not to adopt the permissions that are allowed to those who have no practical knowledge of the Divine helpfulness, and apply them to their own lives.

Nor can I accept the belief that you doubt the practicability of this teaching. You yourself resent with indignation the imputation that any of the men of the body you represent are guilty of the practice spoken of: and you would resent it with still greater indignation if anyone should imply for a moment that you restrain yourselves from mere moral considerations, or for the sake of appearances before the world, or for any less exalted motive than regard for the Lord and obedience to His commandments. Untold millions have been kept in this way from this evil in the past, and hundreds of our brethren are upheld by it to-day. If it is not true,--if the Lord is not a sufficient Savior to guard us against this and all other temptations to which we are exposed,--then there is nothing more to be said, and I for one should despair of the world. But we know that the Lord came to save His people from their sins; we know that He has accomplished that for which He came, and that He will save us if we will believe in Him and go in His name and strength. Whatever allowance we may make for other men, therefore, the New Church can have but one standard of purity, and that the highest. To attain that standard we need but two things: refusal to make any compromise with evil and insistence on the saving power of the Lord.

I trust that you will acquit me of all desire to interfere with the polity of the General Church in thus writing to you. I am acting, as I said in my last letter, not in an official, but in a personal capacity, and am influenced, if I know myself, by a single desire for the peace, harmony and growth of the Church. Taking advantage of the brotherly spirit with which my last letter was received, and with this object in view, I venture once more to urge this subject upon your attention, and if you please, upon the attention of other members of your body.

I do so, in the first place, for your own sake. If I supposed for a moment that your people were in the practice of the permissions that you seem to some to teach, I should spare myself the trouble of writing, both because I should know that it would be useless and because it might be understood as a judgment upon your life; but since I am fully persuaded that you do not practice it, but on the contrary repudiate the imputation with horror, and since you have been misunderstood, whether justly or unjustly, upon the subject, I would earnestly urge upon you the propriety of reviewing your position in some such way as would remove all apprehension and satisfy your friends, even if not your enemies, if you have any.

I ask it, in the second place, for the sake of the Church at large. This subject has long been a burning one. It has been a source of distress and discouragement to many good people, especially women, who have not been able to understand the teachings under consideration.

The position taken by the Council of Ministers has been, so far as I have heard, quite universally acceptable. If now your body could in some way endorse it, I am sure it would not only relieve the minds of many of what seems to them a dark cloud hanging over the fair fame of the Church, but set the Lord before them in His saving work in such a manner as to give them new courage and hope in their efforts to build up the Church in their own lives and in the world.

In the third place, it seems to me it would help us in our relations to the world around us. I am told by those who mingle more than I do with the men of other denominations, that we do not and cannot understand what an incubus the supposed teachings of Swedenborg upon this subject is. It has been brought home to me more than once in a distressing manner, and it has not been easy hitherto to meet the difficulty. But in the light of the REPORT of the Council of Ministers of the General Convention we have nothing to fear. On that ground we can meet and disarm the criticisms of the whole world. Not only so, any attack upon us in that quarter will be only an occasion to advance the banner of the Lord Jesus Christ as a Savior from all sin into its true position as the only hope of the world.

But let me say, finally, my dear brother, that I am not a thousandth part so much concerned about the teaching concerning concubinage as the attitude of the Church toward the doctrine of the Lord and His saving work. This last is the central doctrine of the Church and of all religion. It is the truth by the operation of which men were saved before the incarnation by anticipation, and for the sake of which the Word of the Old Testament was revealed; it is the truth for the fulfillment of which the Lord Jehovah came into the world in the fullness of time, and by means of which the first Christian Church has attained all its triumphs in the past; it is the great truth for the sake of which the spiritual sense of the Word, and all the great drama of the spiritual history of the Church, is now revealed, and for the practical realization and exemplification of which the New Church now exists. It is the basic truth of all truth. It is more basic than the truth regarding this solid earth upon which we live; because if that truth had not been revealed and wrought out no flesh could have been saved, and long before this, this globe must have begun to crumble to pieces; and, unless the revelation could have been made in some other way, the whole universe with it. It is the great ultimate fact of spiritual truth by means of which your mind and mine are held in equilibrium, and we are able to write upon this subject at all. I have thought from the beginning that your body has been all wrong in its teaching upon the subject of concubinage, both in the LIFE years ago and in your own declaration later; and I have thought that you have been led into this error by your failure to apprehend, not theoretically, but practically, the whole truth of the saving power of the Lord.

I am willing to admit that the Convention has not been in advance of you on this subject, and I believe this has been the reason so many of our number have been led away by socialism and all manner of external reforms. But the Council of Ministers of the General Convention has now set this matter right. They have pointed to the doctrine of the saving presence and operation of the Lord Jesus Christ; as our protection against this the subtlest and most universal evil of our nature. It follows that this doctrine is adequate to all our wants, and that this formal recognition and proclamation of it will impart, as far and fast as it is realized, new life and new activity to the Church. If now the General Church could take the same attitude, it would give added strength to the members of the Convention and make this doctrine the central and all controlling doctrine of the Church. I cannot understand how any man who really believes in the saving power of the Lord should think it necessary or allowable that he should resort to concubinage in order to save himself from the effects of his lusts; nor how he can teach that it is allowable for any who knows anything of the reality, the present application, and the fullness of the Lords work in the soul. Accepting this doctrine in its application to my own needs, I believe the New Church should teach nothing less for the guidance and strengthening of the world.

Deprecating the length of this letter, which I have not time to shorten; thanking you beforehand for the kindly consideration with which I know it will be received, and wishing you slid the General Church every spiritual blessing and benediction, I am

Yours in the Church,

(Signed) S. S. Seward.

MR. PENDLETON TO MR. SEWARD.

Oct. 20, 1903.
REV. S. S. SEWARD

My dear Mr. Seward: Tour letter of September 25th was duly received, but the pressure of work near at hand has prevented an earlier answer, and now on the eve of departure for the West, I find myself without time to take up the various points of your letter which I intended to discuss. But perhaps this is not necessary in view of what I shall now say.

I wish to make more clear my reason for declining to answer the question asked of me. There is no difficulty about understanding what I said concerning the laws of order on their face as a general proposition; but an explanation is asked for because there are those who believe that what I said was merely a veil and cover for immorality; and while the Council of Ministers refused the demand of the petitioners, still certain of its leading men yielded so far to the demand as to ask me to explain.

In view of all this the question came as an insult to our body. I readily acquit you, and others who have written to me, of any conscious or deliberate intention of this kind; still such was the character of the thing itself. I therefore declined to answer. And I should continue to hold this position, but since my last letter to you weightier reasons have appeared, and so we have decided to speak on this whole question in a public manner as soon as we shall find it convenient to do so. And I now write to inform you of this, and ask you, in view of what I mentioned above, and in view of the decision we have reached, to excuse me from discussing at this time the questions raised in your letter.

While disagreeing entirely with several things said by you, I cannot fail to commend the sincere and earnest spirit that runs through your letter. I am, as ever,

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) W. F. PENDLETON.

The decision referred to in this letter was a decision to publish a work stating fully the Academy position with regard to the question under discussion.

13.

LAWS OF ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CONJUGIAL.

Early in the year 1904 this work appeared, entitled LAWS OF ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CONJUGIAL, by the Rev. C. Th. Odhner, with an introduction by the Rev. W. F. Pendleton. After publishing in full a literal translation of the three chapters in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE which treat On the Opposition of Conjugial Love and Scortatory Love, On Fornication, and On Concubinage, the work presents an historical sketch of the controversy on the subjects involved in these three chapters, and then takes up for review the RESOLUTION AND REPORT of 1903, which are reprinted verbatim. The inconsistencies of the REPORT are then exhibited, and especially the irrational method of the Council in interpreting the chapters in CONJUGIAL LOVE by the brief statement in the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313, which refers to these very chapters for further elucidation.

The expression laws of order, as applied to the teachings in these chapters, is defended on the ground that every Divine Truth or Divine Law is a law of order, given for the sake of restoring and maintaining order, and it is shown that these teachings are addressed to the New Church, that is, to those who accept them.

While freely admitting that even the mildest forms of pellicacy and concubinage are not in themselves orderly or desirable conditions, but are evil, because necessitated by evil, and that they are not at all intended for those who are able to contain themselves, the author shows that nevertheless, if entered into for the purpose of preserving the conjugial, pellicacy or concubinage is not an evil of sin, and that the practices themselves are described in the Heavenly Doctrine as intermediate between the sphere of scortatory love and the sphere of conjugial love, thus intermediate between heaven and hell. The efficacy of the saving power of the Lord, operating by means of His Heavenly Doctrine and by the natural means of restoration therein described, is contrasted with the inefficacy of faith alone in the cure of abnormal physical conditions. The work closes with a chapter on Purity in the New Church.

14.

MR. SEWARD ON THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD.

In reply to the LAWS OF ORDER, the Rev. S. S. Seward, President of the General Convention, in the summer of 1904, issued a pamphlet of fifty-three pages entitled THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD IN RELATION TO PURITY OF LIFE, copies of which were distributed broadcast throughout the General Convention and the General Church and also in foreign lands. No summary of this work is here attempted, as it has been so widely circulated and is well known to members of the Church.

In this pamphlet Mr. Seward emphatically denies that the laws revealed in CONJUGIAL LOVE, 444-476, are laws of order, although he admits that they are laws of order, as all laws of permission are, in the general sense that they are laws of Divine Operation (p. 15); and that all the Laws of the Divine Operation are laws of order, when viewed from the Divine standpoint (p. 14). We is equally emphatic in denying that the so-called permissions apply to the New Church, or to any man who knows anything of the saving power of the Lord as a living experience or who has ever heard of that saving power, although he makes the admission that we can understand them as laws of permission for the sake of those, both in and out of the Church, who cannot or will not understand the saving power of the Lord (p. 10).

Again, while strenuously denying that the organic conditions, which to some men make pellicacy or concubinage a necessity, are cases of physical disorder, he nevertheless admits that the condition of which he speaks is one of abnormal organization in the form and number of the spermatic arteries. But he maintains that the practical acknowledgment of the Lord as a Savior ... remit or send away the evil spirits who take advantage of such abnormal organizations, and will give us relief from their power (p. 29),an argument which admits the contentions of Christian Science in its faith-cure heresy.

Mr. Sewards pamphlet was briefly reviewed in NEW CHURCH LIFE for January, 1905 and. as no was made, the public discussion of the subject then came to an end.

The results of the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Chicago in 1903 have been briefly indicated. We add here an account of an eye-witness, the Rev. William H. Alden, who was at that time one of the Secretaries of the Convention, and fully conversant with the events leading up to the meeting in Chicago, and with the happenings at that meeting.

[blank page]

PART II.

The Testimony of an Eye-Witness.

[blank page]

PART II.

The Testimony of an Eye-Witness.

PART II.

THE TESTIMONY ON AN EYE-WITNESS.

1.

INTRODUCTION.

At the time of the meeting of the Convention in Philadelphia in 1902 I was in charge of the Book Room connected with the Church of the First New Jerusalem Society of that city, and in close affiliation of uses with the Rev. William L. Worcester, Pastor of the Society. The committee appointed to formulate an orthodox statement as to the significance of the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE included Mr. Worcester in its membership. Mr. Worcester was the writer of the REPORT, and chiefly responsible for the form it took. He was engaged in this work for several months prior to the meeting of the Council in Chicago in 1903.

Here came the crisis for me. I would have rejoiced to confer with him on these grave questions, to read and study the doctrine, to face its difficulties, to have the help of his thought upon it in clarifying my own ideas. But for this no opportunity was afforded. Casually, Mr. Worcester did speak of the question now and again; but always in an incidental way which afforded no opportunity for real consideration.

When I urged the necessity of making such statement as would truly represent the teaching of the work itself, that what it taught should rule, he would ask, Well, you do not regard such things as an indulgence? to which I would answer, Certainly not! but further than this we did not get.

The realization was strong upon me that it was necessary for me to take up the subject as I had never taken it up before. I had, indeed, had instruction in the Conventions Theological School under the Rev. John Worcester, but only the general impression of that teaching remained. Shorthand notes which I had made of that teaching at the time had been mislaid and were not available. I had given the matter little thought during the intervening years. I supposed myself to be in general sympathy with the Convention and in antagonism to the Academy. But I could no longer depend upon party opinion. I must face the question for myself.

Attack had been made upon a direct statement of the Academy (i. e., The laws ... in C. L. 444-476 are laws of order); it became evident to me that the answer to that statement must be made not as a mere partisan output, but as an honest expression of the doctrine itself, which must be taken as of first authority and not suffered to be compromised by any preconceived ideas, whether derived from Convention sphere or from the sphere of the world.

2.

COMMENTS UPON THE REPORT.

Some months before the meeting of the Council of Ministers, at which it was to be considered, Mr. Worcester put into my hands for reading and suggestion the REPORT prepared by him on behalf of the committee.

I took the REPORT and read it in the light of the doctrine which it professed to set forth, with the desire to be guided by those doctrines alone as to the result. I recognized that this meant the most serious judgment which I had ever been called upon to make. I knew well the prejudice against the doctrine; in some sort I realized the risk I ran should I form a judgment at variance with that of the rulers or the unthinking prejudice of the mass of men. But the way was clear; there could be no turning aside from it.

Day and night the subject possessed my thought, which was aroused to the most intense activity. I searched the Writings, both CONJUGIAL LOVE and all the others. I subjected the REPORT to the one test: Did it present the teachings of the Writings? As my study progressed, I was forced to recognize that in important respects it did not. My strictures were somewhat crude, but in essentials have borne unchanged the test of time and further study. To make them as useful as possible, they were cast in the form of a paper, which I entitled COMMENTS UPON THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE. In form the COMMENTS took up point by point the portions of the REPORT which seemed open to censure, noted the inaccuracies, and quoted abundantly from the Writings to confirm the proposed corrections. The whole was prefaced by the following statement of the spirit in which the paper was prepared:

I am quite aware of the seriousness of undertaking to traverse with adverse criticism a report which has received the assent of five and virtually of six leading ministers of the Church. But having, from a strong sense of duty, in connection with the most important subject involved, made as thorough a study of it as I was able, it seems right that I should present the results of that study. If I am in error, I most earnestly desire to be shown it. But the result of my study has shown the presentation found in the doctrines of the New Church to be so logical and clear, that were I charged with the duty of presenting a report upon the subject to the Council of Ministers, I feel that I could do no better than to propose an affirmation of the acceptance by our ministers of Swedenborgs own luminous paragraphs. He is clear, discriminating, logical and consistent throughout. But he does not in his teaching square with the code of morality prevailing in the Churches around us, and it seems to me hopeless to show that he does....

It is a matter of grave pain to me that I must criticize the REPORT, but if my criticisms are just, I believe that they will be recognized as honest, and that it is better that it should receive criticism to the utmost in the house of its friends than that it should have weak spots in its armor, when it comes before its enemies; and if my criticisms are unjust, I shall be sincerely grateful to have my own errors corrected. My one desire is to know and to teach what the Lord hath revealed on this vital subject to the New Church.

3.

MR. ALDENS CHANGE OF ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ACADEMY.

I read my COMMENTS to Mr. Worcester, and after hearing them he simply remarked:

I think that is an excellent argument for the Academy

The answer startled me, inasmuch as I had not prior to that time had any conference on this subject with anyone belonging to the Academy, and so far as I had given their position any consideration, I did not suppose that I agreed with it. I had, indeed, had one interview with Mr. Walter C. Childs, wherein I had entered into something of what might be called the practical phase of the question. This interview had occurred perhaps a year before, and had corrected my thought in one respect, in that Mr. Childs denied knowledge of any immoral conduct on the part of the Chancellor of the Academy, which I had been led to believe had been so notorious as to be beyond denial. Not only that; he claimed that the teaching of the Academy, which I had supposed to be such as, to say the least, winked at immorality of life, had in fact the very opposite effect of protecting from immoral courses.

When I was told that a paper sincerely and carefully prepared directly from the Heavenly Doctrines was a good argument for the Academy my eyes began to be opened; and the notion began to take shape that the antagonism toward the Academy might be antagonism toward the Heavenly Doctrines themselves.

The COMMENTS were sent, I believe, to the other members of the Committee of Five, Messrs. Seward, L. P. Mercer, John Goddard, and Sewall. Mr. Mercer told me personally that they mere essentially correct. None of the others ever referred to it in any way to me. Mr. Worcester did slightly consult with me, and subsequent changes in the REPORT indicated that it had some material effect in modifying that document.

Mr. Worcester was greatly distressed. At different times, in a correspondence which extended over a period of three years, he endeavored to point out to me the danger of my position.

But the only way which could have been effective, namely, to show me my error with relation to the doctrines, he did not employ. He made no endeavor to do so. My desire, often expressed, that he would go into the subject with me fully and frankly, never gratified. Again and again promised conference was under one pretext or another postponed; and Mr. Worcester finally admitted that he had deliberately avoided it. He did indeed show that he held the Academy unconquerably in aversion; he warned me that the Philadelphia Society would not support me if I persisted in teaching what they regarded as evil; but, search the length and breadth of his letters during this time, there is to be found no attempt to meet the essential question itself. What could I believe but that it was impossible for him to meet it; and little by little I was driven to the conclusion that the repugnance which was expressed against the Academy, in actual fact made the Academy the scapegoat for the Doctrine itself, which was the real object of abhorrence.

The coming to the conclusion that I might and, indeed, ought to come into terms of friendly intercourse with those of the Academy was not matter of a moment. The interview with Mr. Walter Childs, already referred to, began the process which was completed at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Chicago in 1903. With the discussion of the doctrine on that occasion were mingled attacks on the Academy, which brought out earnest pleas in the Academys defense. Not alone those formerly connected with the Academy, the Messrs. Schreck, Tafel, and Whitehead, championed its cause, but others also, including the Messrs. L. P. Mercer and Gladish, bore testimony from personal knowledge. The result was that I was thoroughly and finally convinced that I had done wrong to hold myself aloof from those of the General Church on any moral ground. On my return from Chicago, I addressed a letter to the Rev. C. Th. Odhner, the Secretary of the General Church, expressing my regret at my former state of prejudice, my deep satisfaction that I had been convinced that the slanderous stories against the Academy and General Church were without foundation, and my desire to enter into friendly relations.

The letter was cordially answered and, without any pledge of doctrinal agreement on my part,--I indeed at the time believing that; I was not in doctrinal agreement with the Academy,--my desire to enter into friendly relations was heartily responded to.

This correspondence led to visits to Bryn Athyn, resulting in the frankest exchange of views and the threshing out of all troublesome questions. The result was an increasing agreement with the Academy, but, on the other hand, an increasing antagonism toward myself on the part of the leaders of the First New Jerusalem Society is Philadelphia.

These painful experiences, so far as they are merely personal, need not be dwelt upon. Mr. Worcester was quite right when he subsequently told me that I had been very leniently dealt with by the Philadelphia leaders. My change of view, so repugnant to them, had been evident for three years before the end came. For three years I went about becoming better and better acquainted with those affiliated with the Academy, with their thoughts and with their ways. As I became better acquainted I came more and more to realize that their position was at one with the teaching of the Doctrines, and that the repugnance formerly felt toward them was founded either upon external matters not worthy a moments consideration or was due to the influence of slanders, which I challenged wherever I met, and rejoiced to find that they needed only to be brought to the light to reveal their falsity.

For a time I hoped that it might be possible to lead others to see what I had learned with so great satisfaction. But the prejudice, pampered upon ignorance, was too strong. For three years I was tolerated, with increasing strain, and then came the break from the use which I had performed for twenty years.

4.

THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS of 1903.

It is fitting that the Story of the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Chicago should be told here, not only because it has never before been told, but because a misleading impression has officially gone forth as to how the results of it were secured; and furthermore the RESOLUTION AND REPORT, which were adopted by it, have very recently been declared to represent the great consensus of opinion with which everyone who would become or remain a member Of the New Church must agree.*

* See Report of Engard Trial, p. 437, seq.

The Convention in the year 1903 met in Chicago. The sessions of the Council of Ministers began on the afternoon of June 23d. Every possible moment which could be taken from routine business was given to the presentation and consideration of the REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE. The action taken upon the REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THREE as to the attitude to be assumed toward the Academy on the part of the Convention was somewhat of a farce. The report was adopted, and in its own terms it was gravely resolved that with respect to that portion of the petition regarding fraternal relations with the General Church of the New Jerusalem no action be taken. Inasmuch as effective action had been taken the year previous, privately, and inasmuch as at this very meeting in Chicago the ministers, though in a small meeting and by a mere majority, refused the courtesies of the floor of the Council to a visiting minister of the General Church, further action was supererogation. All that the Petition of the Women sought, all that its promoters could have desired, had already been thoroughly accomplished.

Italics ours.

The vote was twelve to eleven.

Practically all of the thirty-seven ministers officially reported as present took pert in the debate.

At the outset the REPORT was read by Mr. Worcester. From the beginning of the discussion which followed differences of view were manifest. The Rev. John Whitehead offered the following resolution, which was characterized by the Chairman of the Council as a lame and impotent conclusion, and was not adopted:

Resolved, That the paper prepared by the Committee, together with the former report on the subject, be printed and distributed to the ministers of the Church, as careful studies of the subjects treated of, with the view that they make such use of them as they think best; and also that the pastors furnish the signers of the petition with copies of the same.

Resolved, That as a preface to the same, an affirmation be made that the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE contains the doctrine revealed by the Lord on the subject of conjugial love, its opposites and intermediates; and that the Council believes that this work contains nothing which is not designed for the purpose of implanting and leading to the purest states of marriage love.

After days of very frank expression of opinion, it became evident that the REPORT in its original form would not be accepted with that degree of unanimity which was desired. The opponents to its reception on the one side endeavored to have adopted a resolution which should in some form affirm the loyalty of the Council directly to the Writings, with the added suggestion that inquirers should be referred to their general pastors for fuller explanation; and, on the other hand, a persistent minority repeatedly urged a compact resolution, which should in some way tag and define the whole teaching of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE by No. 313 in the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, which number was to be appealed to as the all-sufficient interpretation and explanation of the former work. This minority found no support at the time, but their end was afterward accomplished.

When it became evident that the REPORT could not be adopted in its original form, it was recommitted to the original committee, with the addition of the Rev. James Reed, Chairman of the Council, and the Rev. E. J. E. Schreck, the latter having been foremost in the support of the direct teaching of the work itself.

This committee sat for a whole day, and earnestly bent itself to the task of doing the impossible, that is, of making a report which should satisfy all concerned. As was to be expected, they failed; for the time they apparently succeeded.

The committee amended the REPORT, and put it in such form that it met with substantially unanimous approval. There were only two dissenting votes. But the leaders were not satisfied. At midnight I rode home in the same car with Mr. Worcester, who said to me, I hope we have done what is right, but I dont known. But the end was not yet.

5.

SUMMARY OF THE REPORT.

The following is a Summary of the REPORT as finally adopted:

The first section deals with the powers of the Committee of the Council of Ministers, which drew up the REPORT. The committee disclaims for itself or for the Council the right to define the law of the New Church on any subject ... (it) can only give its understanding of the truth revealed by the Lord in his Word, and through His servant Emanuel Swedenborg.)

The second section is headed, Particulars in the Light of General Principles. It quotes from the Writings to show the nature of conjugial love, and that none can be in it except those who approach the Lord and shun all extra-conjugial loves. (This part of the REPORT is taken verbatim from the REPORT of 1879. See page 19.) It then continues with an explanation of the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, as given in TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313, which is supported by other quotations, and concludes, Other passages are not to be understood in a sense contrary to this general truth, or as implying otherwise than that every shade of impurity is evil in the sight of the Lord.

The third section deals with The Paragraphs Under Consideration. After quoting from the Writings, it continues, The distinctions drawn make possible a comparison between the two forms of fornication and between the two forms of concubinage, and between these and other forms of violation of the perfect law of marriage. It then takes up the question of those with whom the love of the sex cannot without damage be totally restrained from going forth into fornication, and states that for such persons pellicacy under certain restrictions is preferable to roaming lust, and where there is a separation of partners for the causes named, concubinage is said to be not damnable (indemne, used in opposition to damnable). Also that persons of this class may be at the same time in conjugial love. Then follow five sub-headings:

1. The practices in question are evil. This is supported by the title, PLEASURES OF INSANITY CONCERNING SCORTATORY LOVE, a title which warns us that we are reading not of marriage love, but of its perversions; not of heaven, but of hell. Quotations are then made showing that fornication is lust, is evil, and is unchaste.

2. To whom these things are said and to whom they are not said. After citing CONJUGIAL LOVE, 450 and 459, it continues: It was for such persons that the paragraphs before us were written, indicating means by which they may be kept from worse evil, and by which the possibility of pure and holy life may be preserved from destruction. It would be a gross abuse of the teachings for those to take it to themselves as a permission of indulgence who are given by the Lord (if they will use it) the strength to keep their lives more pure.

3. The standard of purity for the Church. Here we read: The Church must set before herself the standard of strict; and perfect purity, and must show men the saving power of the Lord which gives strength to attain it and preserve it.... To all lower standards we apply the Lords words concerning the Jewish precept of divorce, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts, etc.

It is noted that in THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE and THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION there is no suggestion of any departure from purity as allowable, but, on the contrary, there are the strongest and most searching charges of strict purity in act and thought and desire. The REPORT continues: No possible departure from this purity is mentioned by Swedenborg except where his treatment, of the subject passes beyond marriage among spiritual men to marriage as it exists in the world among those in evil and natural states. The standard for the Church and for all who would lead spiritual lives must, we believe be the standard of strict purity.... This does not necessarily mean that members of the Church should assume to sit in judgment upon their brethren, but it does mean that by willfully departing from purity a man judges himself and so far removes himself from the Lord and spiritual life.... In one way the passages before us do relate to the Church and to spiritual men, and, we believe, in only one way. They show the Lords mercy and wisdom in dealing with those who are in weak and natural states, and so they show the duty of the Church to be charitable in judgment, and to use her power to encourage and uplift the weak, discriminating between degrees of evil, that she may help more wisely.

4. Deeds judged by their intent. The section consists of quotations from the Writings.

5. The Lords mercy with those who are in evil. This section lays down the teaching that the Lord permits the lighter violations of the perfect law of marriage as means of saving some men from evils which are more grievous, and, if possible, of leading them away from evil to good.

The fourth section recapitulates the former sections.

There may be noted in this REPORT the same compromise which has been already noted in the REPORT of 1879.

6.

THE RESOLUTION, AND HOW IT WAS ADOPTED.

After the main REPORT had been adopted, and apparently the whole subject had been settled, toward the last of the session, when there was not only pressure for time, incident to the meetings of the Convention, but also the absence of a considerable proportion of the ministers from the meetings, the persistent minority before spoken of again brought in their RESOLUTION (see p. 68). It seems worth while to tell the story of the consideration of this RESOLUTION somewhat fully, because of the use which was afterwards made of it.

The RESOLUTION was brought in with the expressed desire to emphasize the fact that in two places, the DOCTRINE OF LIFE, 74, and TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313, Swedenborg includes under the Sixth Commandment not only adultery, but fornication; and it was anxiously and insistently urged that there was need for a simple statement that we stand by the Ten Commandments, in a way the public can understand.

The RESOLUTION, as offered, read:

Resolved, That, whereas, portions of the work of Swedenborg on CONJUGIAL LOVE have been subject to various interpretations, it is deemed expedient that we, the ministers of the New Jerusalem, should, and we do, hereby declare our acceptance of the interpretation of the passages in question, which Swedenborg himself gives in TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313, and in the DOCTRINE OF LIFE, 74, in which fornication or scortation and all practices of impurity are declared to be included in the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery; and that, accordingly, willful indulgence in them by Christians is a transgression of this commandment and is to be regarded as sinful in the sight of God.

It was frankly confessed that the conscience of some of those present was not satisfied with the original report. It was urged that the brief and positive statement would be of use to many who could not wisely and usefully look into the matter as it is presented in the REPORT itself.

The omission of the words fornication and scortation was proposed as being too specific, and the RESOLUTION was so far amended.

In further debate it was contended that the REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF FIVE would be a bad thing to go to the petitioners and before the public. The ministers were reminded that there was great unrest; in the Church over the subject, and this needed to be met. One minister remarked an objection to making such appeal to TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313. We may refer to this number, but have no right to give it as an explanation of the Council of Ministers when there are a number of ministers who dissent from this interpretation. The following substitute was moved but lost, That on this question of fornication and concubinage we refer those inquiring to TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313.

Another objector called attention to the fact that the Council had adopted a REPORT, in the beginning of which the committee disclaims for itself or for the Council the right to define the law of the New Church, for it has no such authority, and he continued, We are endeavoring to do that very thing. We are endeavoring to do that which our author forbids, and we think that we will get harmony by some such resolution as this.

He thereupon moved that the RESOLUTION be laid upon the table, that the action of the other day be rescinded and that the following be passed as an expression of the Council and as a precedent which we in future should follow in order to avoid these conditions which have existed in this General Convention. It will, the speaker urged, refer us to the Lord and to the Doctrines instead of putting our faith in Councils.

Voted, That we cannot, with perfect regard for the laws of charity and use, place ourselves in a position of unfriendly feeling toward anyone or anybody, and me do not regard it as the function of, or to be in the power of any council to interpret doctrine by vote. We therefore refer the petitioners to the prayerful and thorough study of the Writings of the Church and of the Word, whereby there is access to all truth and to the Lord;

and for any individual assistance we affectionately refer the petitioners to their respective pastors, or to the General Pastor of their respective district.

This proposition was opposed as not likely to accomplish any good result. One minister said: I do not believe the question before us is one of the abstract interpretation of doctrine. It is not a question of allegiance to the doctrines of the New Church; it is principally a question of ecclesiastical statesmanship, in view of the ethical conditions of the nation.... The day will come ... when any New Church that exists in these latitudes will have to place itself very squarely upon the position as nearly as possible to that embodied in the [former] resolution.

The substitute resolution was lost, fourteen to seven.

A recess was taken and final session held after the adjournment of the Convention itself.

Objection was made to the pending RESOLUTION that while it appealed to Swedenborg's interpretation as found in TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313, it then proceeded to make its own interpretation of that passage. To avoid this objection the following substitute was offered:

Resolved, That, whereas, portions of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE have raised grave questions in the minds of members of the Church, it is deemed expedient that we, the ministers of the General Convention of the New Jerusalem, hereby declare our acceptance of the interpretation of the passages in question, which Swedenborg gives in the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313, and in the DOCTRINE OF LIFE, 74, in explanation of the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery; and that we further declare willful indulgence in all practices of impurity are transgressions of this commandment, and are to be regarded as sinful in the sight of God.

Another member made objection to the original resolution for the reason that it put the Council in the position of attacking the truth, since the effort seemed to be to make all the acts referred to in TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313, as well as their lusts, to be meant by adultery.

Another declared that he would not be bound by any declaration in opposition to the doctrine revealed by the Lord, and those who passed such a declaration would have to bear the onus of it. The amendment was then adopted by the close vote of twelve to eleven.

It was then pointed out that the amendment omitting the words fornication and scortation left a loophole which would be made use of to class these permissions under discussion as not contrary to the commandment. In a sense, it was argued, that may be so, but in the wide sense in which we are speaking, we should declare that those very things are contrary to the commandment, and that Swedenborg means it in these broad statements, means it in this sense, that the commandment forbids everything that is evil of this nature. If the commandment were carried out in its full purpose and content, it would do away with scortations and fornications with these permissions and everything of the kind. That is what we understand Swedenborg to teach in these broad passages in the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION and the DOCTRINE OF LIFE.

It was further objected that the amendment did not tell what evils were sins.

The RESOLUTION was then amended by putting in a phrase so as to read, All forms of impurity, including fornication and concubinage. This was adopted. A motion to strike out the word willful was not; approved.

The RESOLUTION was then adopted in the form in which it was afterwards printed and distributed, as follows:

Resolved, That, whereas, portions of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE have raised grave questions in the minds of members of the Church, it is deemed expedient that we, ministers of the General Convention of the New Jerusalem, should and we do hereby declare our acceptance of the interpretation of the passages in question which Swedenborg himself gives in the work entitled THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313, and THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE FOR THE NEW JERUSALEM, 74, in explanation of the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery; and that we further declare willful indulgence by a Christian in all practices of impurity, including fornication and concubinage, a transgression of this commandment, and to be regarded as sinful in the sight of God.

The vote on final adoption stood twenty affirmative to three opposed, with three at least not voting.

Thus this RESOLUTION was adopted by a rump council--a RESOLUTION, moreover, which the full Council had repeatedly refused to consider.

PART III.

The Kramph Bequest.

[blank page]

PART III.

THE KRAMPH BEQUEST.

1.

INTRODUCTION.

To the understanding of the intent of this bequest for the endowment of a university for distinctive New Church education, it is necessary to review not only the life of Frederick J. Kramph, who made the bequest, but also the environment,--General Convention, Central Convention, Lancaster Society, of which Mr. Kramph was a leading member, and his associates in that Society, Richard deCharms, William H. Benade, N. C. Burnham, S. S. Rathvon. We shall note the ideas of distinctive New Church education, held by this group of men and urged in societies, associations, conventions, wherever they could make their voice to be heard. Even the name Academy was early in use among these men. We note that the same men who inspired these ideas, adopted by resolution of the Central Convention in the year 1844, were chosen by Mr. Kramph as Trustees of his bequest for the endowment of a New Church University, and were the leading incorporators, when the time was ripe, of the Academy of the New Church.

2.

THE GENERAL CONVENTION AND THE CENTRAL CONVENTION.

The New Church in this country had its beginning in Philadelphia. Here the Doctrines were first announced, in 1784; here the first circle of receivers was formed, in 1786; here the Writings of Swedenborg were first published, in 1789; here the General Convention was first organized, in 1817; here the first New Church magazine was published, in 1818.

From the beginning the Church in Philadelphia was characterized in general by the acknowledgment of the Writings of Swedenborg as a Divine Revelation, possessing Divine Authority; and by the desire to establish the New Church entirely distinct, in life as well as in thought, from the Old Church.*

* Daniel Lammot, one of the leading members of the Philadelphia Society, wrote to Samuel Worcester, March 27, 1822: For my own part I consider the theological works of Swedenborg as the only authority of the new dispensation, and that they do not contain one contradiction or untruth. To believe otherwise is to deny that he was divinely commissioned; and to deny this is to place his claims to credibility on a footing with those of Joanna Southcote or Jemima Wilkinson. NEWCHURCHMAN EXTRA, Philadelphia, 1843, Vol. I, p. 109.

Very soon after the establishment of the New Church Society in Boston, in the year 1818, there developed strong opposition between that Church and the older society in Philadelphia. The Church in New England, under the leadership of the Messrs. Thomas and Samuel Worcester, emphatically denied the Divine Authority of Swedenborgs Writings, and in addition developed a theory as to the relation between a pastor anti his society, which was condemned by the Church in Philadelphia as repugnant to the principles of those Writings.

This theory was that there is a conjugial relation between a pastor and his people,--the pastor being the husband and the society the wife.

Samuel Worcester wrote to Daniel Lammot, February 25, 1822: You mention our seldom referring to the works of Swedenborg. We read them for instruction, and not for authority; hence we talk of what we have learned, and not of what he says. NEWCHURCHMAN EXTRA, Vol. I, p. 105.

In this connection it may be noted that in a recent number of the NEW CHURCH MESSENGER, Mr. Benjamin Worcester, the nephew of Samuel and son of Thomas, gives voice to the same sentiment: Mr. Seward says that ... my communication admits that the Writings are Divine or of Divine authority. This gives me a long-desired opportunity to protest against the designation of Swedenborgs works or writings as the Writings. It is not alone the parsimony of ink, but a certain pretense in the expression that has long troubled me. I cannot answer for the MESSENGER, but for myself. I would never call these works Divine or of Divine authority. (MESSENGER, Jan. 20, 1909, p. 41.)

Out of this notion there grew up in Boston the idea of the Church-organization being the spiritual mother, to which all members and societies owed obedience, not only as to actions, but as to matters of faith.*

*See Address to the Receivers of the Heavenly Doctrines of the New Jerusalem in the United States, by Thomas Worcester and Warren Goddard, in the NEW JERUSALEM MAGAZINE, September, 1840, in which the writers make the following statement:

When the truths contained in these writings are received, and enter into the life of men, and so far as they are received, the men by whom they are thus received constitute the mother on earth.... From the Lord as the Father, and His Divine truth thus brought down as a Mother, are all they born, who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.... And the precepts of this Father and Mother are to be applied to its life by the General Church of the country; that is, the general Church is to decide how these precepts are to be understood, and what they require all the parts of the Church to shun or to do.... In the same manner are the decisions of the larger societies the commands of a mother to the smaller, and the decisions of the smaller to the individuals who compose them.... Supposing all receivers to be equally receivers the united voice of all must be more nearly correct on all subjects which concern the whole than the voice of any part, for the Lord is more fully present and operative, the more of the Church there is to receive Him, and when therefore anyone assumes to pass judgment upon the deliberate and united doings of the whole, he assumes to have more of the Church in him, or to be wiser than the whole (p. 26).

For a very recent expression of the same idea, see testimony of the Rev. William L. Worcester at the Engard Trial, p. 437, seq.

Owing to financial disasters overtaking the Church in Philadelphia, the center of influence of the New Church in this country shifted, between the years 1822 and 1828, from Philadelphia to Boston. Most of the annual meetings were henceforth, for some twenty years, held in Boston. On account of the distance, the members in the Western and Middle States could not conveniently attend the Conventions, and consequently lost all influence in the government of the Church.

On this account the Western Convention was established in Cincinnati, in 1832, with the Rev. Richard deCharms (formerly of Philadelphia) as the leading spirit and the editor of its official organ, THE PRECURSOR, in which the present Academy Principles were first developed.*

In the meantime the Church in Philadelphia remained in a very weak and disorganized state, which continued until 1840, in which year the Rev. Richard deCharms was called from Cincinnati to be the minister of the reorganized Philadelphia First Society.

The General Convention, in 1838, under the influence of the Boston Society, had adopted a resolution (Minute 59, JOURNAL OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION, 1838), termed by its opponents The Squeezing Rule, according to which no one of the societies, now its members, which shall neglect to become organized according to the Rules of Order adopted by the Convention, until after the meeting of the Convention in the year 1839, ought thereafter to regard itself, or to be regarded, as a member of Convention.

This Rule created great indignation and active opposition in the Middle [Atlantic] States, and in consequence the old society in Baltimore, the First Society in Philadelphia, the society in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and the First Society in New York City, severed their connection with the General Convention (or the Eastern Convention, as they termed it); and, together with individual isolated members in many other places, united in 1840 in a Middle or Central Convention, independent of, and coordinate with, the General Convention.

*See articles dealing with The Authority of the Doctrines, Vol. I, pp. 59, 348; on The Priesthood of the New Church, pp. 45, 120; on The Necessity of Order in the External Things of the Church, pp. 316, 332, 343, 361, 378, 390; on The State of the Christian World and the Distinctiveness of the New Church, p. 193; on The Need of Distinctive New Church Education, pp. 174, 189, 201, 253.

The distinguishing features of this Central Convention were:

(a) The acknowledgment of the Divine Authority of Swedenborgs Writings in all matters of faith and life in the New Church.

(b) The declaration that individual receivers, while they may form particular societies for ... local purposes, ... are to be regarded as a general church, existing at all times, arranged by the bonds of a common faith, united by a common end, and constantly reacting on its central organs in sympathy and cooperation with their functions, thus not as an annual meeting of delegates, governing the Church by majority rule. (NINTH JOURNAL OF THE CENTRAL CONVENTION, Constitution, Art. II, p. 73; Art. VII, p. 74.)

(c) The recognition of the principle of a trine in the ministry, and of the power of the ministers to determine the trine in the ministry as taught in the Word, and from thence in the Writings of Swedenborg, and to make such rules and regulations, with regard to their own government, and the proper discharge of the ministerial functions, as they may think necessary (Ibid., Arts. XVII, XX, p. 75).

(d) The assertion of the paramount importance of individual freedom. This Convention most explicitly and expressly disclaims any right whatever to exercise control or dominion over the members of the New Church in their individual or collective capacity. It is perfectly aware that it neither has, nor could have, nor should have any right to coerce them in any way whatever. And it hereby solemnly resolves that no such power will be either overtly or impliedly exercised by it. But all its measures that have a bearing upon individual or other members of the Church shall be recommendatory only, and shall have no other authority than their own intrinsic truth and rationality as determined by each one, looking to the Lord alone, and judging for himself in the light of his Word and the Writings of his Church (Ibid., Art. IV, p. 74).

(e) The ideal of New Church education. This is expressed in the following resolution, which was passed in 1844:

Resolved, That this body thinks the establishment of a complete New Church seminary, to be under the control and support of this general body, and to be devoted to the education of our children, on the spiritual principles of the New Jerusalem, is a vastly important desideratum; and that, whenever the Lord, in His providence, shall clearly open the way, and afford the means of establishing and sustaining such an institution, it will be one of the most important uses to which this Convention can devote its best and most enduring energies (JOURNAL VI, Minute 54, p. 7).

All these features will be readily recognized as characteristic, later, of the Academy of the New Church, of the General Church of Pennsylvania, and of the present General Church of the New Jerusalem.

But the time was not yet ripe for the successful maintenance of a body founded on these principles; and so, after a few years of usefulness, the Central Convention became inactive and in 1852 the remaining members declared the body dissolved. This dissolution, however, meant no abandonment of the principles on which the Central Convention had been founded. On the other hand, the dissolution was quickly followed by efforts to form a new general body, which should more effectually embody these principles.

In 1855, three years after the formal disbandment of the Central Convention, two of the most prominent members of that body, the Rev. N. C. Burnham and the Rev. W. H. Benade, joined in the sending out of a circular for the holding of a general assembly of the Church. The circular recited:*

* For Mr. Kramphs endorsement of this circular see p. 88.

that the time has now arrived, for those who are in the acknowledgment of the faith of the New Jerusalem, to direct their thoughts to a serious and solemn consideration of the great question of the establishment of the New Church on such a full and perfect basis of order as may lead to an even fuller and more perfect development of a true external worship and government whereon to rest, and whereby to act out the internals of its associative life of charity, in the performance of those uses, which ass the life of all in the Lords heavenly kingdom.

This circular was accompanied by a statement of Principles for the Constitution of a General Body of the New Church.

The first four principles set forth a general acknowledgment of the Divine Word, of the Lord in His Second Advent and of the Heavenly Doctrines of the New Jerusalem, of the laws of Divine order as relating to clerical and lay functions and functionaries, and concerning public worship.

The fifth principle is an acknowledgment concerning general uses of charity, and under this head it is said:

That it is the duty of the Church to provide for the instruction of the young in the doctrines of the Church, and in all knowledges and sciences, as the necessary and orderly means for the reception, understanding, and acknowledgment of those doctrinals; and that, to neglect this duty, is to endanger their spiritual welfare.

The sixth and last principle is an acknowledgment concerning the formation of general and particular bodies of the Church.

The meeting in answer to this call to form a general body founded on these principles, was attended by F. J. Kramph, S. S. Rathvon, and N. Carpenter, as representatives of the Lancaster Society; but it was not successful in its aim. The principles themselves, however, still lived, and, as will be readily noted, are identical with what later became known as Academy principles.

{86|

3.

FREDERICK JOHN KRAMPH.

Frederick J. Kramph was born in the Grand Duchy of Baden, in Heidelberg, March 11, 1811, and was educated in the orphan asylum of that city. He was brought up in the Evangelical Protestant religion. He came to this country in the year 1832, provided with a knowledge of his trade, which was that of a tailor, with a stout heart and hopeful courage flowing from a profound trust in an all-wise and merciful Providence. With these essential elements of success he settled in New Cumberland,*Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, after having visited various parts of the country in the pursuit of his calling.

* A small town, about thirty-five miles from Lancaster, opposite Harrisburg, on the Susquehanna River.

Mrs. Kramph, in the NEW CHURCH MESSENGER for July 7, 1897, relates how Mr. Kramph received his first knowledge of the doctrines of the New Church:

One evening in 1835, in company with a number of other men, he sat in front of a store conversing; finally they got onto religion, asking to what Church each belonged. One was a Baptist, one a Methodist, and so on. When it came to Mr. Kramphs turn, as he belonged to no Church, but had some humor, he replied: I am a Swedenborgian. Then one of the men spoke up, saying he had one of Swedenborgs books. Mr. Kramph jumped to his feet, saying: Can I have it? The man said he had no use for it, and Mr. Kramph walked home with him, three miles in the country, and bought it for seventy-five cents, as I see noted in this book [HEAVEN AND HELL] which now lies before me, from the fly leaves of which I also take these facts. All that Mr. Kramph knew of Swedenborg was this: In Germany he had read some of Young Stillings books, and had there seen a favorable mention of Swedenborg, and the statement that there was a sect called Swedenborgians. He took the book home with him and slept little that night, but with the morn awoke into a new life.

Jung Stilling, the celebrated German scientist and mystic.

He joined the Lancaster Society and was baptized by the Rev. M. B. Roche, of Philadelphia, in 1836, and in the same year removed from New Cumberland to Lancaster, attracted by the prospect of success in business and by his strong desire to unite with his New Church brethren in Divine worship.

His activity and energy soon established a successful business. He labored in and out of his calling and took especial delight in assisting and providing homes for those whose circumstances were straitened but whose industry and honesty rendered them deserving of encouragement and aid. His adopted city during the later years of his life manifested its appreciation of his public spirit by placing him in positions of trust and honor. He was an active member of the select council of Lancaster City, and for many years a member of the board of school directors, and was serving in that capacity when he died.

Mr. Kramph was three times married. His first and second wives were sisters, daughters of the Rev. James Robinson,* of Philadelphia. His third wife was the daughter of Mr. David Pancoast, a member of the Lancaster Society. Mrs. Kramph died on Christmas Day, 1902, surviving her husband by more than forty years. Her sister was the wife of the Rev. N. C. Burnham and a zealous member of the Academy.

* An English New Church minister. He had been the pastor of the Society in Derby, England, from 1818 to 1828; came to America in 1829, and settled in Haddington (or Darby), near Philadelphia, where he remained as pastor of the New Church Society there from 1829 to 1835. He took part in the founding of the Central Convention in 1840 (see ANNALS OF THE NEW CHURCH, pp. 267, 322, 357, 403, 453).

Formerly of Cincinnati, and connected with the Western Convention.

Mr. Kramph was an active and leading member of the Lancaster Society from its beginning, joined with others in the formation of the Central Convention, and, on the dissolution of the Central Convention, remained with the Lancaster Society, independent of the General Convention, until his death in 1858.

As a delegate, Mr. Kramph took active part in the Central Convention during all the years of its existence. But while he was never a member of the General Convention after 1839, he, together with Mr. Benade, who also was not a member, attended the meeting of that body in 1856, and their names appear on the JOURNAL of the Convention of that year in the list of visitors. Mr. Kramph was also a visitor at the Convention of the following year.

It was through Mr. Kramph that William H. Benade became acquainted with the doctrines of the New Church, in 1843, and throughout the subsequent years of his life he was in intimate touch with Mr. Benade, and in hearty sympathy with those views of the Writings, of the priesthood, and of education, which subsequently became known as Academy principles. On April 29, 1856, in acknowledging the circular sent out by Messrs. Burnham and Benade, calling for a General Assembly (see p. 84), he declares himself

most happy that efforts are being made for the formation of such a body, upon principles which I consider strictly in accordance with the Writings, and continues that he thought the time had come when it was necessary for members of the New Church to ultimate its truths, for efforts are being made by professed New Churchmen to destroy the distinctiveness of the Lords visible Church on earth. New Church baptism, which is the proper entrance to the Church, is denied by many, as well as the Clerical functions, as being distinct from lay functions, as also the degrees of the ministry as taught by Emanuel Swedenborg. There are many uses which might be performed to the Church by the concentrated action in a body of New Churchmen united as one man, having their actions based upon such principles as you here set forth. We need schools, also institutions for scientific and theological instruction, to prepare suitable men for the church, as well as for the other uses of life.

On June 19th of the same year he attended the meeting held for the purpose of forming such a general body, which, as already noted on p. 85, proved unsuccessful of its aim.

Also in this same year, October 13th, he wrote a cordial letter, congratulating Mr. Benade upon the laying of the corner stone of the Cherry Street School,* saying that Mr. Benades Society in Cherry Street was the only one in this country, perhaps in the world, which has a constitution founded on true order.

And he continues:

* This school was established by Mr. Benade just prior to the issuance by him and Mr. Burnham of their circular call and Principles, among which latter was the proclamation of distinctive New Church Education (see p. 84).

I am more of the opinion, that if you and our two societies desire a larger range of usefulness we must look to the General Convention, which likely at its neat meeting in Cincinnati will adopt such a platform as we may be able to assist in bringing a better state of things about. I feel as if it was quite a new era in the New Church of this country to have a society with a school, founded on correct New Church principles; this society has, I hope, laid with the corner stone also the seed for a New Church university, or seminary for learning. You seem to be well prepared to perform those uses in church and school, and it is quite gratifying to me to know from you, that your society is sustaining poll to the best of their ability, which is the best proof that your services are appreciated. I pray that both school and the society may prosper.
Mr. Benade was apparently of the same opinion as Mr. Kramph as regards the advisability of joining the General Convention, if this could be done without the sacrifice of principle. See his endeavor in this direction, on p. 98, seq.

Having thus seen Mr. Kramphs connection with the Lancaster Society, and his close sympathy with Mr. Benade, we shall now take up the policy and affiliations of the Lancaster Society, and shall follow with some account of the activities of Mr. Benade.

4.

THE LANCASTER SOCIETY.

The seeds of the New Church were planted in Lancaster as early as 1785 by William Reichenbach, from Saxony, and by Baron Heinrich von Bulow, in 1796. The Lancaster Society was regularly organized in 1836, although the Convention Journals indicate that it was recognized as early as 1824.

As a result of the squeezing rule, adopted by the General Convention in 1838, referred to above, the Lancaster Society did not report to the General Convention subsequent to 1839, but sent the following communication to the preliminary meeting of the Central Convention:

This Society is (unanimously) of opinion that the present organization of the Eastern Convention is not adapted to the state of this Society. We are favorably inclined to a Middle Convention, but as yet have not been enabled fully to decide upon it, wishing more time to enable us to examine this subject more fully (see APPENDIX TO JOURNAL OF MIDDLE CONVENTION, May 1840, p. 9).

In October of this same year a second preliminary meeting of the Central or Middle Convention was held, at which Lancaster was represented by Messrs. L. C. Iungerich, Henry T. Keffer, F. J. Kramph, and Alexander Officer. The Society sent a contribution of ten dollars to aid in the publication of THE NEWCHURCHMAN, the organ of the Central Convention, and also subscribed for five copies. In the letter accompanying this subscription the Society states:

The subject of the Middle Convention has increased in favor with our society, and we should be desirous of becoming members of that body if the Constitution about to be adopted will leave them in that necessary freedom, which in the General Convention we do not enjoy. We are of opinion that the three degrees of ministry and its consequent powers as proposed, will interfere with this freedom (MINUTES OF THE LANCASTER SOCIETY, special meeting, July 25,
1840. See APPENDIX,* pp. 145, 146).

* The title of the pamphlet containing the official stenographic report of the Audit at Lancaster, with the documents offered in evidence.

In the next year, after further consideration of the subject, the Lancaster Society sent a report to the Central Convention, including the following resolution, which had been adopted by the Society:

Resolved, That we are in favor of the Constitution proposed by the last Convention, because we find, by examining the Writings of our Church, that the much-disputed point, viz.: the existence of three discrete degrees in the ministerial function is taught therein; and as we only wish to be guided by the Word and those Writings, we must consider the last clause of our report to the last Convention [i. e., the paragraph quoted just above], as premature; for we had not previously examined the Writings upon the subject, and therefore did only give our opinion (MINUTES OF THE LANCASTER SOCIETY, June 2, 1841. See APPENDIX, p. 146-7).

The report of the Society to the Central Convention for 1844 includes note of the entrance into its membership of the Rev. W. H. Benade and Mr. L. S. Demuth, who are thus referred to:

Our doctrines have gained several new readers, and among them two men of talents and learning, who seem to be deeply interested in the perusal of Swedenborgs works, and will possess candor and energy enough to proclaim their conviction without fear and regardless of worldly considerations (APPENDIX, p. 153).

In April of this year, Mr. Benade was engaged to preach for the Society on every Sunday.

The next year, 1845, a long report was sent to the Central Convention, including a statement that the Lancaster Society had unanimously adopted a resolution that the Lancaster Society be and hereafter is a Society in the Central Convention, and that no one shall be admitted into the Society who is a member of any general body, association or Convention, other than the general body, association or Convention, in which this Society is (Ibid., pp. 156-57).

In this report further information is contained relative to Mr. Benade:

Mr. Benade was a preacher in the Old Church,... and having received license from the Rev. Mr. DeCharms, was elected our leader, preaching regular sermons every Sabbath, which have awakened the attention of several new hearers, who appear to take a lively interest in the doctrines of the New Church. His proficiency in the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, in our opinion, fully entitles him to the favorable consideration of being ordained a minister of the New Church, and we cheerfully recommend him for that purpose (Ibid., p. 159).

The Society, May 22, 1845, passed a resolution to the effect that it fully and cordially subscribe to the principles laid down by the Central Convention;... deeming them not only just and true, but also a decided advance upon any principles of order for general church government promulgated elsewhere (Ibid., p. 160).

The Society sent an annual contribution to the Central Convention with its reports, up to 1849, when the Central Convention ceased to be active.

After the dissolution of the Central Convention in 1852, the Lancaster Society remained for thirteen years (thus long after the death of Mr. Kramph) independent, unaffiliated with any general body of the Church.

The history of the Society after Mr. Kramphs death does not directly concern the subject of this work and so need not be dwelt on. We, however, briefly review it, as showing the strong lack of sympathy with the General Convention which characterized the Society during Mr. Kramphs life.

In the year 1865, seven years after the death of Mr. Kramph, the Society became a member of the Pennsylvania Association, and thus came into connection with the General Convention,--the Pennsylvania Association, including the Philadelphia Society (Cherry Street), of which Mr. Benade was then pastor, having united with the General Convention in the year 1858. The Society remained a member of the Pennsylvania Association until 1890. But prior to this time, in 1883, the Pennsylvania Association changed its name to General Church of Pennsylvania, and became closely affiliated with the Academy of the New Church which had been incorporated in 1877.

Through most of its history the Lancaster Society has been in the charge of ministers whose names are familiar to this history. The Rev. Richard de Charms visited the Society regularly from 1841 to 1845 as missionary pastor. In 1845 the Rev. William H. Benade began his public ministry for the New Church in Lancaster, where he was invited to preach regularly, but was almost immediately called to the larger field in Philadelphia.

In 1855 he accepted the call to become the officiating pastor of the Lancaster Society, for special services, to preach and to administer the sacraments at least four times in the year. This relation continued until the calling of the Rev. N. C. Burnham in 1865, many years after Mr. Kramphs death; Dr. Burnham remaining pastor of the Society until 1885.

About the year 1887 the Society seems to have felt some dissatisfaction at not being supplied with ministerial services by the General Church, except at long intervals. Mr. Benade explained that this was unavoidable. Nevertheless the dissatisfaction continued, and at a meeting in December, 1889, the question of separation from the General Church was seriously considered. At this meeting Mr. Kramphs friend and executor, Mr. S. S. Rathvon, expressed his own disinclination for the change. Like the rebels of the South who followed their States, he said to the Society, I should probably follow my Society, although I might be loath to take the initiative.

Meanwhile, in the same year, a new Pennsylvania Association had been formed, which included chiefly the First Philadelphia Society and the North Philadelphia Society (formed by those who had separated with the Rev. L. H. Tafel from the General Church), and also took in various small circles in the State and in New Jersey. This Association was dominated by the leaders of the First Philadelphia Society (Chestnut Street).

This Society, which had separated from the General Convention in 1840, and had united with the Central Convention, after time underwent a decided change of character, owing to the death of the old leaders and the influx of new elements. A growing antagonism toward the principles of their pastor, the Rev. W. H. Benade, resulted in the resignation of the latter in 1854. Henceforth, while the Society, for more than forty years, remained independent of the General Convention, the leading members viewed with active hostility the various movements inaugurated by Mr. Benade in Philadelphia and in Pennsylvania, and took the lead, especially, in the opposition toward the Academy and the General Church.

This explanation will indicate how important was the change involved in the withdrawing of the Lancaster Society from the General Church of Pennsylvania, and its union with the new Pennsylvania Association.

In the resolutions of withdrawal adopted in 1890, the explicit record is made:

That when the Lancaster Society assumes this separate attitude, it asserts nothing in criticism of the doctrines, principles, and order of the General Church of Pennsylvania. The reasons given in the preamble for the action are that there does not seem to be that mutual affiliation between the Lancaster Society ... and the General Church ... that ought to distinguish organizations having for their object public worship of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and that the Society had no voice nor choice in the proceeding through which it nominally became a member of the General Church.

But while the Society thus withdrew from the General Church in 1890, it did not at once join the Pennsylvania Association. Indeed this action was not taken until after the death of Mr. Rathvon, Mr. Kramphs closest friend.

Mr. Rathvon never lost his sympathy with the principles of the Academy. So late as 1887 he wrote to Bishop Benade that he was going to call a minister of the Academy--for my predilections are in that direction, personally. In the same letter he says he is desired to negotiate with the authorities of the General Church, as to what compensation would be required, if it is able to send a minister. At the last meeting, he adds, I read a paper in which I expressed my dissent to calling ministers from hither and thither, if they could be obtained within the General Church--that is, so long as the Society is a member of the general body it ought to have some regard to its head--that there is little danger to be apprehended from arbitrary rule.

Mr. Rathvon died March 19, 189,1, and four mouths afterwards, July 22d, the Society resolved to make application for membership in the Pennsylvania Association and thus in the Convention.

The consequences of this separation of the Lancaster Society from all connection with the Academy Branch of the Church and its affiliation with the Convention have been momentous in determining the disposition of the Kramph residuary estate, and thus in hastening a crisis for the whole New Church.

5.

WILLIAM H. BENADE AND THE INCEPTION OF THE ACADEMY.

Mr. Benade was introduced to the knowledge of the New Church doctrines, as has been already noted, by Mr. Kramph. He began his career as a New Church minister in Lancaster, and has stood, more than any other man, for the Academy idea of the Lords Second Coming, both as to the authority of the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, with all that this implies, and as to the importance, even the necessity, of distinctive New Church education. There is abundant testimony to the fact that he looked to distinctive New Church education on the broadest, most universal lines, and through many years unceasingly planned for it.

In a letter to the Rev. J. P. Stuart, August 16, 1851, he speaks with highest praise of Dr. Leonhardt H. Tafels scheme for Universal New Church education. In another, of date February 7, 1854, he gives emphatic expression to his views, writing in direct reference a proposition made him at that time to become general agent for the Urbana University. For a time he was disposed to consider the offer favorably. But he felt doubts as to whether his views of Church order and ideals of New Church education would be acceptable to the Urbana management. And therefore, in a letter to J. P. Stuart, the President of Urbana University, September 24, 1854, be emphatically records his platform of faith:

IN REGARD TO SWEDENBORG AND THE AUTHORITY OF HIS WRITINGS, I AM A STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST. TO ME THOSE WRITINGS CONTAIN TRUTHS CONTINUOUS FROM THE LORD, WHICH TRUTHS ARE HIS SECOND COMING INTO THE WORLD, AND THEREFORE DO I CONSIDER AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THEM IN THE WHOLE OF THEIR BEARING AND TEACHING, AS SYNONYMOUS WITH AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HIM IN HIS SECOND ADVENT. It may appear unnecessary for me to state those things, but I do it in order that there may be no misunderstanding between us, and in order that you may know that I hold no private opinions in respect to the things of the Church. MY OPINIONS ARE THE TEACHINGS OF THE HEAVENLY DOCTRINES.*

* Capitals ours.

But the Academy idea was not destined to find congenial soil in Urbana. On October 25, 1854, Mr. Benade wrote, declining the proposed position, assigning, among other reasons, his doubt as to his fitness for the work required, and his unwillingness to mix secular with clerical functions. He adds:

Even if I possessed these abilities,... I could not conscientiously employ them for your institution, before it had assumed such a form of order, by the introduction of a distinctive and fully expressed New Church religious and theological element, and a proper arrangement of its government and course of studies, so as to develop this element,which I could confidently and heartily recommend to the patronage of societies and members of the Church throughout the
land.

Because I cannot consent to place my ministerial office under the direction and control of a layman or laymen, believing as I do that the schools of the Church, as well as the Church itself, must be under the government of ministers, as representatives of the Lord.

He gives as a final reason:

Because circumstances have arisen in this city, which seem to indicate plainly that it is my duty to remain here, or at least within the bounds of Pennsylvania, in order to give my humble aid in carrying out the principles of order, to which I have become committed by an entire conviction of their divine truth, and such as can alone promote the real welfare of the Lords Church on earth.

Because there is a prospect of our being able start an educational movement here, which shall, in its inception and progress, embrace the whole Church, while it shall receive its character from the whole Church....*
*This refers to the Cherry Street School, endorsed by Mr. Kramph See pp. 88-9.

He adds:

On Sunday before last I resigned in public Church meeting my office of Pastor of the First Society in this city because of the disorderly proceedings of that Society. A number of its members have separated from it on the same ground, and are now about forming a new Association to aid in sustaining this appears to be my plain duty, as well because the separation is on the ground of the principles involved in my resignation, as because of the express desire of those who favor this movement, that I should do so. How the movement will succeed remains to be seen, of course, but I regard it as one of very great importance to the whole Church, on account of those principles of Church order, which are to be brought forward and enforced.

On January 22, 1856, he writes to Mr. Stuart:

I see that you with others have been stirring in the great work of education. May the Lord speed you! There is none of greater importance to the Church, and none the speedy promotion of which will more fully conduce to her firm establishment. This is a subject which has engaged much of my attention. I am entirely convinced that we cannot too soon establish our own schools for the education of our children. Our people here are beginning to see this. If they did not it would not be for the want of preaching and talking. I trust that before another year has passed by we shall have a New Church free school in this city.

On September 11th of this same year, 1856, the cornerstone of the school building at the corner of Cherry and Claymont Streets was laid. In the address delivered on this occasion, Mr. Benade thus prophesies the future of this beginning of New Church education:

In contemplating the future of this beginning we may be permitted to think of the time when this house shall be completed and receiving that small flock which shall first enter within its walls....

And looking past that period, down the vista of coming years, we may suffer our thought to run on other and many more forms of youthful life, gathered together in the same place and for the same end....

And then, turning the eye to the right hand and to the left, and all around, may we not behold many, very many other and like houses, smaller and larger, with their inmates, and their labors and their uses, and their irradiating spheres of New Church life and heavenly charity, and in the midst of all, and high above all,--a great house, a wonderful house of science and knowledge, of instruction and education, with its youth and young men, and middle-aged, and old men, with its learning and intelligence and wisdom, and its universal sphere of New Church education and life, extending on all sides, and to all parts, flowing into, and forming and conforming all the lesser and least houses into accordance and agreement with it,being to them as a perpetual fountain for the replenishing of their uses, and receiving from them its supplies of needed material, to elaborate and send forth again and again in the performance of its great universal use? May we not, nay, should we not look to these as ends also, in our present work? Who shall say that these things shall not be? Who will gainsay, if we declare that they will be? That the time is even now coming, when the New Church shall awake to the importance, the vital importance, of the use of providing the means of instruction and education for its children and youth, and for all children and youth within its own borders? The time when it will recognize and acknowledge this,--as one of its first uses,--one of its first ecclesiastical uses; one of the greatest of the heavenly uses, for the performance of which it now descends, and is hereafter to be established in the earth,--a use, without the performance of which, it cannot descend and will not be established.

In the following year, by request of the Philadelphia Society, Mr. Benade corresponded with the Rev. Thomas Worcester, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the General Convention, in reference to the matter of its becoming connected with that body. The Society did not regard it as useful to remain isolated, provided they could find some common ground of cooperation with their brethren. On April 23 Mr. Benade therefore writes:

We wish to unite ourselves with the General Convention; and the object of our addressing you, and through you, the Executive Committee of that body, is first to express this our desire, and then to ascertain whether there is any prospect of a. way being opened for our entering into your communion.

We are well aware of the ordinary mode of procedure in apparently similar eases. But the situation of our Society is such as to render it impossible for us to adopt the usual course. You will probably know from published documents, and from other sources, that me have based our constitutional organization, or the organic law of our existence as a society of the external Church, on certain general principles of order as taught in the doctrines of the Church from the Word, which are different from those commonly acknowledged, or, at least, distinctly avowed by many of our brethren, and you will perceive that you cannot receive us as a member of your body without thereby acknowledging the truth of those principles, and that we cannot without unfaithfulness to the truth as it has been given to us, desire to he received by you, unless convinced of the acknowledgment of those principles by your body....

If the General Convention had published a declaration of the principles of order and use upon which its constitutional organization and action is intended to be based, we should have no need of addressing you in this manner. We should know your position, and be enabled to determine our course.

But such was not the case, and since they wished to unite themselves to the Convention at its next annual meeting, if possible they wished to learn

from you if you should deem it compatible with your duty to the Convention to give us the information, what order of ecclesiastical government (by which me mean that which refers especially to the ministry) you propose to establish; and whether your platform will embrace an acknowledgment that schools, academies, etc., are ecclesiastical concerns, and therefore among the general and particular uses of the Church in its greater and less forms.

The letter then stated the position of the Philadelphia Society as to the order of the ministry, and as holding the principle that schools are ecclesiastical concerns,--and that it is the duty of the New Church to establish them as ecclesiastical uses of vital importance, according to the teaching of the Word in Isaiah, ch. 19; of the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 15, 201 23, and of the DOCTRINE OF CHARITY, 27.

As to the other points of ritual, the Society did not hold their general acknowledgment to be essential to its union to the Convention.

The letter concluded by speaking of the benefits of the union upon ground of principles of order, rationally seen and acknowledged.

By a consolidation of the disjecta membra of the Church in this quarter, we, on our part, shall undoubtedly receive a greatly increased power for good, and your body by lengthening its cords and strengthening its stakes will be placed in a better position to develop its larger life of larger use, and so to fulfil more perfectly the end of its establishment and existence.

Mr. Worcester replied, on April 30, that the committee was not then in session, and, moreover, would have no authority to settle the question raised by Mr. Benade. He thought that there was now common ground enough to stand upon, and presumed that the Convention would not make the least objection to your admission on account of the opinions expressed in your letter, unless you should make them essentials, and sine qua nons. As to the order of the ministry, he stated he had no idea of what the opinions of the Philadelphia Society are. As to our duty with respect to education in worldly affairs, we seem to differ at present; but whether we should, if we had a chance to explain, I doubt. However that may be, I presume we should make no objection to your holding your own views and acting upon them.

To this Mr. Benade replied, under date of June 5. After stating that he had not expected to receive more than a general idea of the probable course of the Executive Committee, he continues:

As it appears from your letter, however, that several questions of importance have not yet been settled in the Committee, we shall have to wait with all patience for further tidings concerning the determinations to which you may come when assembled together. With us, the two points, in reference to the order of the ministry and schools, mentioned in our communication, are essentials, for the reason that our organization as a society is founded upon them.

Our constitution makes the minister of the Society the superintendent of its schools, and looks to the employment of ministers of the first grade as instructors.

If the use of instruction is not ecclesiastical it is secular, and if secular, then is our Society a secular and not an ecclesiastical Society, because we have adopted as the use of our Societys charity, and the primary and essential of its worship the establishment and maintenance of a school for the education and instruction of children and youth in spiritual and natural science and knowledge. As a secular Society we could not be received by the Convention, which is an ecclesiastical body. Nor can we wish to be connected with the Convention, so long as it does not recognize our organization as ecclesiastical.

These things are not mere ideas or opinions with us; they are fundamental principles of life and action, received from the Word and Writings for the Church. If we were to yield or hold them in abeyance, we should be doing violence to the truth, as it has come to us for acknowledgment; and doing.... Our constitution makes the minister of the Society, the superintendent of its schools, and looks to the employment of ministers of the first grade as instructors. Were we already connected with the General Convention, we should undoubtedly see enough in its position and uses to make it our duty to preserve that connection, and to work faithfully in it and with it, but since that is not the case, it appears to be the dictate of wisdom, in looking toward such a connection, first to endeavor to ascertain whether there is sufficient agreement upon certain fundamentals of order and action to enable us freely and cordially to enter into it, and to work rationally in the performance of uses. If only theoretical questions, and matters of opinion were at stake it would not be right for us to hesitate in the taking of this step. But that is not so. As yet there seems to be a difference of principle, which would necessarily affect our action in your body, and which, since we desire to work rather than to talk, might lead to antagonisms and disturbances. Far be it from us to introduce discordant elements into the Convention, now that it seems so fairly started on the way of harmony and peace, and now that it needs all the strength of union to make head against opposing influences.

As a result of this correspondence the General Convention of 1857 by resolution recognized the Philadelphia Society of the New Jerusalem as an ecclesiastical body and declared the readiness of the Convention to receive that Society as a member if it is disposed to join the Convention (JOURNAL GENERAL CONVENTION, 1857, Minute 39, p. 8). On the strength of this resolution the Philadelphia Society, in 1855, joined the Pennsylvania Association, and, through it, the Convention.

In a letter to Mr. Stuart of December 6, 1859, the Academy is first mentioned:

Now to speak of another matter, which I think will interest you.... You remember our talk about the Academy. Three of us met together on the 25th of last month, to talk about a work which we find absolutely necessary as a preliminary to the proper management of New Church Schools;--i. e., a complete digest of the Writings, which shall enable the student to turn at once to any subject, and there find all that E. S. has written upon it, etc. As we talked it over it became clear that this was the work for the Academy. With the thought cants the deed. We organized ourselves into a preliminary meeting, resolved to found the Academy, and to invite yourself, Messrs. Hibbard, Rodman, Wilks, Cabell, and Dr. Hatch (of this city), to unite with us, and make up the nine first members. The three here are the two Tafels and myself. We propose for the present to keep our organization private (not secret), therefore please dont speak of it, to admit no members except by a unanimous vote, and to proceed systematically to work, doing one thing at a time,--and doing it as well and thoroughly as in our power lies. We ought not to enlarge our numbers until we have well digested our constitution and consolidated ourselves into an institution which shall be permanent. A hasty enlargement would endanger our existence. The parties named would harmonize, I think, and act together as one body. This body might in time become the New Churchs organ to do these important uses, which are now given into the hands of those loose-jointed, wiggling committees, which after every yearly pretended or attempted incubation of the eggs given them to hatch out, give forth,--voces (reports) et praeterea nihil,What the Church wants is not reports of work to be done,--but work done.

To this Mr. Stuart replied, December 31, 1859:

You are right about the Academy: and you may consider me with you in it. You will please say to the others associated with you that I accept the place as a member, and tender to them my sincere thanks for the trust reposed in me.

On April 2, 1860, Mr. Stuart further writes, suggesting as uses for the Academy the translation of the Writings, an elaboration of an organon of science, and a system of propagandism.

On April 30th of the same year, Mr. Stuart again writes, congratulating Mr. Benade for working away at the Academy.

But, this Academy seems to have been more or less informal, so far as our information goes.

There seems, however, to have been a strong desire for a more definite organization, and on November 8, 1865, Mr. Stuart wrote to Mr. Benade, as to how this should be begun; and stating that he had proposed to Mr. Dike and Mr. Abiel Silver a college for the education of priests, located near New York, with Mr. Benade at the head of it.

Two days later, Mr. Benade replies that the Academy lives, and exists, for life is in act, and he announces that an Academician of the first rank [Dr. n. L. Tafel] has written the work, SWEDENBORG THE PHILOSOPHER AND MAN OF SCIENCE. In the following year, 1866, Mr. Stuart writes on January 31st, suggesting to Mr. Benade a visible body, including a College of Priests, a Theological and a Scientific School, a publishing house and a place of
worship.

On March 11th, Mr. Benade wrote Mr. Stuart, insisting on the acknowledgment of the Divine authority of the Writings as a sine qua non of membership.

There was much other correspondence,* and finally, in January, 1874, Mr. Stuart wrote Mr. Benade that the young men of Pittsburg would help the Academy into existence. The young men referred to were Messrs. John Pitcairn, Walter Childs and Franklin Ballou, who, together with Mr. Benade, took the first steps to the formation of the present Academy, which was finally incorporated in 1877 (see NEW CHURCH LIFE, 1906, p. 75).

* For a full account of this whole movement, see NEW CHURCH LIFE, 1906, p. 65, seq.

It is recorded in the JOURNAL of EDUCATION of the Academy that the single purpose of the organization was to institute an active propaganda in the New Church for the more loyal recognition of the Divine Authority of the Revelation which had been delivered to the New Church by the Lord in His Second Advent (1901, pp. 61, seq.).

To this end the publication of the serial, WORDS FOR THE NEW CHURCH, was begun in 1876, and a Theological School, with associated Collegiate Departments, was established in the following year. In 1882 there was added a School for Boys and in 1884 a Seminary for Girls.

The above account clearly shows the direct connection between that institution of learning which Mr. Kramph designed to endow with his residuary estate and the actual Academy of the New Church which claimed it. The germinal ideal of a New Church University, which Mr. Benade cherished, and which Mr. Kramph heartily believed in and encouraged, was developed by clearly marked steps into no institution which was subsequently incorporated by twelve men, three of whom, including the leader, were among those chosen by Mr. Kramph as Trustees, to hold his residual estate for, and apply it to, this very use, in the event that such an institution was not in existence at the time of the final settlement of his estate.

6.

THE WILL.

In the year 1854, two years after the dissolution of the Central Convention, while the Lancaster Society was independent of any ecclesiastical affiliation, Mr. Kramph drew up his will. The portion of this will which is of special importance to this present history is contained in paragraph 15, by which the residuary estate is bequeathed to certain Trustees, for the purpose of endowing a university of the New Jerusalem, to be founded in the consolidated City of Philadelphia for universal New Church education, together with the provision that in case such a university was in existence at the time of final settlement of the estate, the residuary fund should be paid by the Executors directly to the Trustees appointed in and by the Charter of that University. A summary of the whole will will be found on pages 136, seq.

7.

THE SUCCESSION OF TRUSTEES.

Mr. Kramph died May 22, 1858. Final settlement was postponed for nearly fifty years. Mrs. Kramph died in 1902.

Meanwhile the Academy was not unmindful of the matter. At a meeting of the Council of that body in 1883, Mr. Benade, Chancellor of the Academy, called attention to the bequest. The minutes of the meeting of October 9th record:

Mrs. Kramph had hitherto managed the estate as Executrix; the Academy was found to be entitled to file her accounts and to turn over the estate to be administered by the Academy. It was thought better, however, to still leave the administration of the estate in the hands of Mrs. Kramph.

Again at a meeting of the Council, May 4, 1888:

The Chancellor spoke of the ill health of Mrs. Kramph ... and that in case of her death some one should go to Lancaster, and lay claim to a legacy left by Mr. Kramph, of which the Academy is the legitimate heir. If this should occur in the absence of the Chancellor this coming summer, W. F. P[endleton] was requested to represent the Academy.

Mrs. Kramph herself was earnestly desirous that the purposes of the will with respect to the endowment of a New Church University should be carried out, and took an active interest in maintaining the succession of the Trustees. Considerable correspondence passed between herself and Mr. Benade and other Trustees on the subject.

Nevertheless the record of the succession of Trustees is imperfect, and it does not appear that the direction of the will was carried out literally in the appointment of any successor to the original seven Trustees. The original Trustees as named in the codicil, dated May 27, 1857, were L. C. Iungerich, Henry A. Carpenter, Simon S. Rathvon, Alexander Officer, Rev. William H. Benade, Rev. N. C. Burnham, and Rev. Rudolph L. Tafel.

In a letter to Mr. Benade, dated November 14, 1879, Mr. Rathvon states that all were then living, with the exception of Henry A. Carpenter.

In a document signed by five of the original Trustees, at various times from 1883 to 1887, appointment is made of John H. Metzler and Samuel A. Carpenter, as successors to L. C. Iungerich and Henry R. Carpenter, deceased.

There is no documentary evidence to show the appointment of Mr. William McGeorge, Jr., Mr. John Pitcairn, and Mr. George F. Rathvon, who are referred to in a, letter of Mrs. Kramph to Mr. McGeorge of date February 8, 1893, as having succeeded Dr. Burnham, S. S. Rathvon and S. S. Carpenter. Mr. Metzler testified at the audit in Lancaster, July, 1908, that he had to the best of his recollection nominated Mr. G. F. Rathvon to succeed his father, and that Mr. McGeorge had been appointed at about that time. Mrs. Kramph, in a letter to Mr. McGeorge of date February 2, 1893, expressed her gratification that Mr. McGeorge had accepted the nomination of Mr. Officer to become one of the Trustees. In a letter to Mrs. Kramph of May 9, 1593, Mr. John Pitcairn stated that he would accept the trust if satisfactory to the other Trustees. In a letter without date, but evidently prior to that of Mrs. Kramph of February 8, 1893, which refers to it, Mr. Benade had nominated three persons to act as additional Trustees under Mr. Kramphs will,... R. M. Glenn, J. Pitcairn, Hugh L. Burnham, and requested Mrs. Kramph to name some one in Lancaster to take the place of Mr. S. S. Rathvon. Mrs. Kramph adds, in her letter of February 8, that only one place was left for him [Mr. Benade], and Mr. Ps name came first. How it happened that only one place was left for him does not appear from any record.

At the time of the appointment of Messrs. McGeorge, Rathvon and Pitcairn, 1893, only two of the original Trustees were living, William H. Benade and Alexander Officer, and of those who had been appointed in direct succession, there was but one living, Mr. J. H. Metzler. Mr. Benade, as already noted, nominated three and requests the name of a fourth from Lancaster to fill the four vacancies. Mr. Officer nominated Mr. McGeorge, and Mr. Metzler nominated Mr. G. F. Rathvon. It would appear that this latter nomination was at Mr. Benades suggestion, to succeed S. S. Rathvon. Mr. Benade did not agree to the appointment of Mr. McGeorge, whose appointment, so far as can be judged from the scanty information available, rests upon the nomination of one original Trustee, Alexander Officer, with the concurrence of one successor, Mr. Metzler. The appointment of Mr. Rathvon and Mr. Pitcairn seems to have had the approval of all three of the Trustees living at the time. The fourth vacancy was not filled until April, 1897, when, by a document signed by five persons, including Alexander Officer, one of the original Trustees, but not including Mr. Benade, Rev. W. L. Worcester was appointed Trustee in place of Dr. Tafel. It does not appear that Mr. Benade was even consulted in this appointment. In 1899, by a similar document, again signed by five persons,--not including Mr. Benade, now the only survivor of the original Trustees,--the Rev. Frank Sewall was appointed to take the place of Alexander Officer. There is nothing to show that Mr. Benade had any notice whatever of this appointment. A similar document of date May 28, 1907, records the appointment of Rev. S. S. Seward in the stead of Rev. W. H Benade, who died in 1905, the last survivor of the original Trustees. This document was signed by five successors to the original Trustees, Mr. Pitcairn refusing to take part in the appointment. This completes the record of the appointment of successors. The Board at the present time consists wholly of successors to the original Trustees, namely, Messrs. John H. Metzler, George P. Rathvon, William McGeorge, Jr., John Pitcairn, William L. Worcester, Frank Sewall, and S. S. Seward.

8.

ECCLESIASTICAL RELATIONS OF THE ORIGINAL TRUSTEES.

It is to be noted that the Trustees originally appointed were all in sympathy with Mr. Benade in all that group of ideas subsequently known as Academy principles, while in the final outcome all the present successors to the Trustees, with the exception of Mr. John Pitcairn, are opposed to the Academy.

Only one of the original Trustees, Alexander Officer, was al the time of his appointment a member of the General Convention. All of them had been closely identified, together with Mr. Kramph, in the work of the Central Convention, with the exception of the Rev. R. L. Tafel, who was barely twenty-one years of age when the Central Convention was formally dissolved in 1852. Today, none of the original Trustees are living, and all their successors, with the exception of Mr. Pitcairn, are members of the General Convention.

The original Trustees were chosen by reason of their sympathy with Mr. Kramph in his desire for the establishment of distinctive New Church education; today, none of their successors, except Mr. Pitcairn and Mr. Sewall, are in sympathy with the universal New Church education which Mr. Kramph desired that his residuary estate should endow.

The present successors to the original Trustees are well known, and are fell the most part leading men is the General Convention. It will be useful to recall the ecclesiastical relationships of the original Trustees.

HENRY A. CARPENTER was one of the earliest members of the Lancaster Society. With other members of the Lancaster Society he joined the Central Convention, upon the roll of which his name appears in 1842. There is no evidence to negative the presumption that he remained a member of the Central Convention throughout its whole career, and, with the Lancaster Society, was independent of the General Convention when he was named a Trustee.

LOUIS C. IUNGERICH helped to organize the Lancaster Society in 1836, was active in the formation of the Central Convention and was upon its Acting Committee in 1842. In 1854 he associated himself with Mr. Benade for the support of public worship in Philadelphia, after Mr. Benade had resigned from the pastorate of the First Philadelphia Society. In 1856 he became a member of the Philadelphia Society and was a supporter of Mr. Benade in the organization of that Society, and the principal contributor to the school building of which Mr. Benade laid the corner stone at the corner of Cherry and Claymont Streets.

SIMON S. RATHVON joined the Lancaster Society in 1853. In 1856 he wrote to Messrs. Benade and Burnham expressing his agreement with their circular proposing the formation of a new general body. As late as 1887 he expressed his predilections for the Academy principles, and while the Lancaster Society withdrew from the General Church during the last year of his life, it did not join the new Pennsylvania Association until after his death.

ALEXANDER OFFICER was a member of the Lancaster Society from 1839. He was an intimate friend of Mr. Kramph and joined the Central Convention with him. He went West in 1849, joined the Chicago Society, and gradually assumed an attitude hostile to Mr. Benade and the Academy.

NATHAN C. BURNHAM joined with Mr. deCharms in issuing the call for the formation of the Middle or Central Convention in 1840, and was a member of the Central Convention throughout its whole duration, and a member of its Ecclesiastical Council in 1845. After the dissolution of the Central Convention he joined with Mr. Benade in sending out a circular for the meeting to organize another general body in 1855. He was a brother-in-law of Mr. Kramph, and when the Academy was organized he was one of its charter members and became a professor in its Theological School.

RUDOLPH L. TAFEL was a member of the Philadelphia Society in 1854, a supporter of Mr. Benade in the organization of that Society and in carrying on the work of education in the Cherry and Claymont Streets School, and was one of the founders of the Academy, and professor in its Theological School.

Some account of WILLIAM H. BENADE has been already given. He was active in the, affairs of the Central Convention, becoming its Recording Secretary in 1846.

The three last named, Messrs. Benade, Burnham and Tafel, were charter members of the Academy. And Mr. Kramph had such confidence in two of these gentlemen, Messrs. Benade and Burnham (Mr. Tafel was only a very young man at the time), that he appointed them Special Joint Guardians of his children.

Such were the men whom Mr. Kramph appointed as his Trustees. All were heartily in sympathy with the ideas respecting Church organization and New Church education for which Mr. Benade planned and labored, and which Mr. Kramph designed to forward by his residuary estate; all but one (Dr. Tafel) were members of the Central Convention and ipso facto were opposed to the General Convention.

How came it that a body, self-perpetuating as this was, became changed into a body almost entirely antagonistic to the ideas, both of Church polity and distinctive New Church education, which Mr. Kramph so earnestly held?

The answer to this question has been already in part indicated. The trust for many years did not seem likely to become active, and the succession of Trustees was in consequence neglected. We find in 1893 only three Trustees instead of the seven which the will required. The three were far separated from each other, one in London, one in Chicago, one in Lancaster. Mr. Benade, one of the two original Trustees surviving at that time, indeed nominated three men in sympathy with himself as successors to the trust. But the actual appointment seems to have been supervised by Mrs. Kramph, through whose active efforts the Trustees were reminded of their duty in providing for the succession.

It appears from one of her letters that Mrs. Kramph became disaffected toward Mr. Benade, and was not favorable to nominations made by him.* Against the wish of Mr. Benade, and by the vote of the two other surviving Trustees, Mr. William McGeorge, Jr., was appointed, and later, the Rev. Messrs. W. L. Worcester and S. S. Seward were selected, likewise without Mr. Benades approval, and, so far as the records show, without consultation with him,--both of these men, like Mr. McGeorge, being typical of the Conventions antagonism to the Academy. These three men, Messrs. McGeorge, Worcester and Seward, finally controlled the action of the Trustees.

* See pp. 106, 145.

9.

ATTEMPTS AT SETTLEMENT.

Mrs. Kramph died on Christmas Day, 1902. In the spring of the following year, 1903, Mr. John Pitcairn and the Rev. C. E. Doering, Treasurer of the Academy, met Mr. W. U. Hensel, of Lancaster, at that time counsel for the Kramph Estate, with the aim of making final settlement of the Estate, and obtaining the residuary estate for the Academy, which was regarded by its officers as the institution contemplated by the terms of the will.

On the first of May, 1903, Mr. Hensel suggested to Mr. Pitcairn that steps should be taken in the autumn for the sale of the property, and for the appointment by the Orphans Court of Lancaster of Trustees, to be selected by the Academy. Mr. Pitcairn thereupon conferred with Mr. William McGeorge, Jr., and it was agreed that sale of the property should be deferred till September.

On May 28, 1903, an informal meeting was held at the office of Mr. Pitcairn, at which Mr. McGeorge and Mr. Worcester were present, together with Mr. Pitcairn and the Rev. Charles E. Doering, Treasurer of the Academy. On behalf of the three Trustees present at this meeting, Mr. Pitcairn invited all the Trustees to meet at his office June 16, to consider what was necessary to be done to carry out the true intent of the will.

He asked each Trustee, if unable to attend, to write out his views of the case and forward them to the meeting, and concluded:

That you may know the basis of the Academys claim, I am sending you, under separate cover, the Journal of Education of the Academy of the New Church, which contains a copy of its Charter on page 37, from which you will see what that institutions aims and purposes are, and can thus judge whether they are in accord with the ends and purposes of the late Mr. F. J. Kramph, as expressed in his last will and testament. So far as I am aware, the Academy is the only institution that meets the requirements of the will, or comes near to doing so, as there is no other New Church university founded in Philadelphia.

Mr. McGeorge wrote to Mr. Pitcairn on June 12, stating that he would be unable to be present at the meeting, and adding:

In regard to my views about this matter, I think they will probably be expressed by the Rev. Mr. Worcester. We have consulted together. He has taken considerable pains to get at some of the facts of this case, and I think it will probably be necessary, in order to settle this question definitely and satisfactorily, that the Academy should perhaps institute a suit and make a demand for this money so that the case may he judicially determined as to the relative rights of the parties. (He further asserted in the same letter): We have no desire to claim it for anybody, and if the Court should hold that your institution is entitled to the money we should not resist,* but I think both Mr. Worcester and I feel that we ought to be judicially advised in order to relieve us of our obligations as Trustees.

* Italics ours.

It will be noted that when this was written, on June 12, 1903, Mr. McGeorge was fully acquainted with the position of the Academy with regard to the latter part of CONJUGIAL LOVE.

The Rev. Frank Sewall, another of the Trustees, wrote, on June 3, that he would be unable to attend the meeting, and declared his belief that

the institution known as the Academy of the New Church comes within and fulfills the legal requirements of the term, New Church University ... mentioned in the will; that said Academy of the New Church is a legally incorporated body;

that although said Academy is at present located in Bryn Athyn, Pa., it was founded in Philadelphia, and its charter names Philadelphia as its place of business and office. For these reasons, in my judgment, the said Academy of the New Church is the legal beneficiary under this will after its other bequests have been duly provided for.

Mr. Worcester, in a letter to Mr. Pitcairn, June 13, 1903, expressed his intention to be present at the meeting, and added:

I have not doubted that we shall be able to agree open the right disposition of the fund. It does, however, seem to me that several points must be carefully considered, and until they are considered and the right course is made plain, it seems to me that the Trustees should hold the fund.

Neither Mr. Metzler nor Mr. Rathvon acknowledged receipt of Mr. Pitcairns communication. Mr. Benade was in Europe and so could not be reached in time. Mr. Worcester alone attended the meeting with Mr. Pitcairn.

At this meeting of June 16, Mr. Worcester said that there was a doubt in his mind as to the duties of the Trustees, especially as the Academy was not located in Philadelphia; but he admitted that this might be a mere technicality. He had no doubt that the Academy was the only claimant. He thought it might be the duty of the Trustees to hold the fund for a time.

Mr. Pitcairn suggested that Mr. Hensels advice he asked, to which Mr. Worcester assented, but stated that if there was a difference of opinion among the Trustees, the views of those dissenting should also be given to the attorney. He said that as he and Mr. McGeorge were the only persons who had expressed a doubt in regard to the Academys claim, if they were to put their views into writing, they would probably cover the doubts in the mind of any other Trustee, as to the intentions of Mr. Kramph, and the interview closed with the understanding that Mr. McGeorge and Mr. Worcester were to put their views into writing for the purpose of submitting them to Mr. Hensel.

In the following September Mr. McGeorge consulted Mr. R. C. Dale, a prominent lawyer of Philadelphia, and wrote to Mr. Pitcairn:

He does not go into the Academy question at all, but he simply says and advises that inasmuch as under the will, there is a Board of Trustees created to take the fund in this case, that Board should demand from the administrator the fund, and that when that was in hand, inasmuch as the testator has directed the Orphans Court of Philadelphia to have jurisdiction in this matter, we should file a petition in that Court setting forth the facts of the will, and that if then the Academy, through its duly constituted authorities, would make application for [the] fund, and if the Court decides that they are entitled to it, that ends the whole matter.

Mr. Pitcairn at first approved of the plan to have the Trustees reappointed by the Orphans Court of Philadelphia.

In a letter dated October 8, 1903, Mr. Hensel gives to Mr. McGeorge all the very meager records which he had been able to find among Mrs. Kramphs papers, relating to the appointment of Trustees, repeats his opinion that it would be necessary to present a Petition to the Orphans Court in Philadelphia, and adds that it could do no harm to have the appointment confirmed by the Orphans Court of Lancaster County.

To Mr. Pitcairn, Mr. Hensel wrote on the same date, that nobody need be prevented by this arrangement from setting up any claim they may desire to maintain as to the disposition of the money. His letter was accompanied by a rough draft of a petition for the appointment of the Trustees, setting forth the facts that the successors to the origina1 Trustees were only informally appointed, that no organization of such Trustees ever took place, no minutes have been kept, and no records ... in existence of their proceedings, that the exact record of the succession is fragmentary, indefinite and incomplete, but praying that the Trustees thus informally appointed shall be appointed by the Court.

Mr. Pitcairn, in a letter to Mr. Hensel of this same date, October 8, says:

When I acquiesced in the suggestion made by Mr. MeGeorge and Mr. Dale, that a petition be died in the Orphans Court at Philadelphia for the confirmation of the present Trustees the Kramph will, it was with the understanding that I had with Mr. McGeorge, that the only object of himself and Mr. Worcester was to secure a release of the Trustees from any legal responsibility, and that it was not their intention in any way to contest the right of the Academy to receive the fund. On Tuesday last I called on Mr. McGeorge, and found that he had shifted his position, and in order to confirm this, I had my secretary, Mr. Brown, call upon him, and I now have no doubt that it is his intention to question the right of the Academy to receive the fund, and to contest this point in the Courts. I have, therefore, withdraw my consent for the present, to the application to the Orphans Court of Philadelphia County, until I could hear from yon and get your advice in the matter. Inasmuch as it appears to be Mr. McGeorges intention to contest the matter, I am at a loss to know why he wishes to petition the Court at Philadelphia. It occurs to me that in any case it would not be necessary for the present Trustees to be confirmed by the Court, as the will directs that if the fund has not been turned over to the Trustees appointed under the will, up to the time that the New Church University was organized, the Executors should transfer the fund direct to the Trustees of the University. Was this matter considered in your interview with Mr. Dale?

In this same letter Mr. Pitcairn formally asked Mr. Hensel to represent the Academy of the New Church in the pending litigation. To this Mr. Hensel consented, but he still urged the petition, which in his opinion would not in any way prejudice the case of the Academy. He did not believe that the case would come up in the Lancaster Court, and expressed his belief that the Academy was entitled to the fund.

The petition was presented to the Orphans Court in Philadelphia, substantially in the form proposed by Mr. Hensel, by Mrs. Annie E. Rengier, daughter of Mr. Kramph, and the administratrix after the death of Mrs. Kramph. Minor criticisms were made by Judge Hanna to the form of the petition, but in addition, he raised the really serious objection that it did not seem necessary for the Court to appoint Trustees, inasmuch as the Trustees themselves had the right to appoint successors, and only in the event of their refusing to do so did that duty devolve upon the Orphans Court of Philadelphia (see p. 148).

After considerable correspondence, the petition was withdrawn in March of the following year.

On March 4, 1904, Mr. Hensel proposed that one Trustee should be appointed at Lancaster, who should be authorized to sell the property, after which could come the real controversy over its proceeds. This was objected to by Mr. McGeorge on the ground that such action would deprive the administratrix of her proper fees in connection with the sale. Mr. Pitcairn also raised the question, whether this procedure would not leave the proceeds of the sale in the hands of the Trustees. In this connection he emphasized the position consistently held by him. He says in a letter to Mr. Hensel, dated March 7, 1904:

The position of the Academy of the New Church is that the Trustees Kramphs will have never become entitled to the property in question, and really have no duties to perform in connection therewith, and that the proper course would be for the Executors to secure the necessary authority to sell the property and hold the fund, pending the Courts decision as to its final distribution, and in this way avoid bringing in the Trustees for any active duties.

Upon advice of Mr. Hensel that it was not desirable to press the sale of the property at that time, which action would be likely to result in the sacrifice of all interests concerned, the matter was dropped for several months.

September 13, 1904, Mr. Pitcairn again expressed his opinion that the appointment of Trustees or a Trustee to sell the property was unnecessary, and asked if sale could not be effected, as had been done in a previous instance with real estate, by the administratrix directly. He makes in this letter the further suggestion:

I have heard indirectly that Mr. McGeorge has recently expressed his intention to contest the claim of the Academy of the New Church to this property. As we must have this contest sooner or later, do you not think it would be advisable to meet this question at once, and before the property goes to sale?

for if a decision should be rendered in favor of the Academy of the New Church in a proceeding in which all the Trustees were made parties, that, I should think, would eliminate the Trustees entirely, as being a decision on the main point as to whether they have any claim or interest whatever in the property.

September 15, Mr. Hensel replied that in his opinion any purchaser would require the notification of Trustees appointed by the Orphans Court of either Philadelphia or Lancaster, and again proposed a petition for their appointment. He declared that this would in no way prejudice the rights of any claimant, and that sale must be made before the final distribution of the estate.

Nothing further was done for more than a year. On February 22, 1905, Mrs. Annie E. Rengier, daughter of Mr. Kramph, died, and in her stead her eldest daughter, Eva T. Rengier, later Mrs. T. R. Appel, was appointed administratrix. In May Mr. Hensel again urged the importance of the appointment of Trustees by the Philadelphia or Lancaster Courts.

William H. Benade, the last of the original Trustees, died May 22, 1905. On May 31st of the same year, Mr. Pitcairn, in pursuance of the intention expressed by Mr. Hensel to petition the Court for the appointment of an entirely body of Trustees, suggested the Directors of the Academy for appointment.

Still the petition met with objections, and two years passed by without any further action being taken.

Then, on June 10, 1907, Mr. McGeorge writes to Mr. Pitcairn, reminding him of the moral and spiritual obligations placed by the will upon the Trustees in the matter of the appointment of successors, and advising him that five of the six surviving Trustees have united in a deed, appointing Rev. S. S. Seward a Trustee in the place of Rev. William H. Benade, deceased, and asking whether he approves of this selection and would like to join in this appointment.

To this Mr. Pitcairn replied, June 17th, objecting to the appointment of Mr. Seward, inasmuch as, the Academy being the legal beneficiary under the will, there seemed to be no necessity for the appointment of Trustees.

Such body as existed must be regarded as purely de facto, without justification for its existence. He adds:

I think I am clearly within bounds in saying that Mr. Kramphs will contemplates joint action on the part of his Trustees; and it seems to me that it is obnoxious, both to the spirit of his will and the tenets of the New Church, that lobbying should be employed in the selection of a Trustee. I bring this point to your attention because you are the only one of whom I have heard who claims that the Academy of the New Church is not entitled to the bequest in question.

As I understand you, your sole objection to the Academys taking this fund is that the College of the Academy is not now located in the city of Philadelphia. I know of no other reason that you have urged against the Academy. On the other hand, I have yet to hear of another institution which lays claim, legally or equitably, to this fund.

Attention is called to Mr. Sewalls admission that the Academy was the proper beneficiary, and the letter continues:

In view of the fact that you conceived the idea of having Mr. Seward made a Trustee, and, instead of fairly presenting his name before the Board, at a meeting duly held, you undertook to approach the various members,--leaving me until last,--I feel that I am not asking too much when I insist that you make this a matter of joint action by the Board as a body.

It is manifest to any unprejudiced person that if any Trustee should be required to fill a vacancy, they should be the Trustees of the Academy of the New Church,--and I most earnestly protest against your action in endeavoring to subvert the intention of Mr. Kramph by injecting Mr. Seward into this matter.

On the same date Mr. Pitcairn sent to each of the Trustees a letter, referring to the meeting with Mr. Worcester in his office on June 16, 1903,* quoting in full Dr. Sewalls letter in which he states his opinion that the fund should go to the Academy, and continuing as follows:

* See p. 113.

See p. 112.

At the meeting Mr. McGeorge advanced the technicality that the Academy had changed the location of its College from Philadelphia to Bryn Athyn. This was urged in spite of the fact that the General Office of the Academy is, and always has been, located in Philadelphia. Mr. McGeorge has since, in various ways, been obstructing the settlement of the estate. A spirit of mischief and revenge seems to be actuating him and he has been placing every possible obstacle in the way of the Trustees carrying out the intentions of Mr. Kramph. It is evidently a dog in the manger policy, the intention being to prevent the Academy from coming into its inheritance.

In contrast with this dishonest policy, I beg to call your attention to the action of the Academy as illustrated in Mrs. Talbotts will. Mrs. Talbott bequeathed $2,000 to the New Church Theological School. At her death, her executors became aware that there were two New Church Theological Schools, and declined to pay the $2,000 to the Convention Theological School. The matter was brought to the attention of the Directors of the Academy, and although they might legally have claimed half the bequest, they were satisfied that Mrs. Talbott intended that the fund should go to the Conventions School, and passed a resolution disclaiming all right to the bequest. The executors then applied to the Court, which issued an order to pay the fund over to the Convention Theological School. I put these facts before you so that you may understand and appreciate the spirit in which the Academy has acted in matters of a similar character.

To this letter answers were received from Mr. McGeorge and Mr. Worcester. Mr. McGeorge sent a copy of his letter to all the remaining Trustees. The letters follow:

MR. MCGEORGE TO THE TRUSTEES.

June 19, 1907.
JOHN PITCAIRN, Esq.,
Land Title and Trust Building.

Dear Sir: Your letter of the 17th inst., in regard to the matter of appointment of Rev. S. S. Seward as a Trustee in the place of Rev. William H. Benade, deceased, under the provisions of the Kramph will, is received.

I was about to say that I was surprised at its contents, but this would not be strictly true, for while I have hoped almost against hope that your early New Church education and our old association and friendship when we both looked up to Mr. Benade as our instructor and guide in spiritual matters, would assert themselves and remove the bitterness of feeling which finds expression in this letter to me and the still more remarkable one to the Kramph Trustees, while I have hoped that your study of the heavenly Doctrines would at least cause you to remember that it is not permitted to us to judge of the motives of our brethren, and that at all events, and in all matters, we should endeavor to render righteous judgment,--while thus hoping I have been constrained to note what seems to be an entire absence of all these considerations in your treatment of me for many years, and therefore I am not surprised that the same spirit still seems manifest.

But while I am not surprised at your personal letter, I am surprised that a careful man of business, such as you are properly esteemed to be, should write and publish a letter charging dishonesty, which is in contravention of the law of the land....

Answering your letter seriatim, I would say,--and, of course, what I say is only my opinion, as what you say is yours, and is necessarily subject to the judicial determination of this question,--in my opinion then

First. The Academy of the New Church is not the legal beneficiary under this will, and has no more claim in law or equity on this fund than the Catholic College of St. Charles Borromeo at Overbrook.

Second. There is a necessity for the appointment of Trustees, which must be respected by all who feel themselves bound by moral or spiritual considerations, because they have been solemnly charged, on both moral and spiritual grounds, by Mr. Kramph, the testator, to perform this duty.

Third. The justification of the existence of the present Board of Trustees, is that they have been appointed in the way designated by him, and for the purposes expressed in his will,--and as showing that you have heretofore held a different opinion on this point from what you now express, I would remind you that there are among the archives of the Trustees some deeds in a precise form to that appointing Rev. S. S. Seward in which you have joined.

Fourth. It would undoubtedly be the better plan for the Trustees to assemble and take joint action in this matter of appointing successors to deceased Trustees, but no one knows better than yourself that, scattered as they are, this is impossible. You tried to secure a meeting for a much more vital and important matter than naming a successor, and the only ones who attended were Mr. Worcester and myself, which should be perhaps accepted as evidence of our desire to comply with your wishes. However that may be, the course pursued in the present case is precisely the same as that which you have heretofore pursued without question of its regularity. As bearing upon the question of regularity of this course, I might say that there is before me as I write a deed of appointment, joined in by S. S. Rathvon, William H. Benade, Alexander Officer, N. C. Burnham, and R. L. Tafel, the deed stating that it was executed by Rathvon at Lancaster, October 3, 1883, and then held up by Mr. Benade till November 27, 1880, who then secured the appointment of an Academy man, whose name he has written in his own hand in purple ink;

it was then promptly executed by N. C. Burnham at Pardee, Kansas, December 4, 1886; by Alexander Officer at Chicago, December 4, 1886; and by R. L. Tafel at London, England, January 13, 1887. These were all original Trustees appointed by the testator.

Fifth. It is undoubtedly obnoxious, both to the spirit of his will and the tenets of the New Church that lobbying should be employed in the selection of a Trustee, but why is this obvious fact obtruded in this letter to me? Do you intend to charge that lobbying was practiced, because if so, then the four other Trustees who have joined with me in the choice of Mr. Seward either must have been actively guilty of this impropriety, or weakly victims of it, and neither suggestion is complimentary to them. As a matter of fact, four of the Trustees did confer as well as they could, not only by correspondence, but by personal intercourse, and as a result, the name of Mr. Seward was suggested not by myself, for I was doubtful whether he would be willing to serve, but as the will provided that the person chosen should be a well-known and undoubted member of the New Jerusalem Church, when the name was proposed it seemed to me that the President of the General Convention complied with both the letter and spirit of the will in the very highest degree possible.

Sixth. I can discern no relevancy between this question of lobbying and your statement that you bring this point to your (my) attention, because you are the only one of whom I have heard who claims that the Academy of the New Church is not entitled to the bequest in question. I can imagine a discourteous implication in this, but I shall wait to have you make your point a little more clearly before deeming you guilty of it. I have an idea from our former experience, that you will not shrink from expressing yourself clearly and will not resort to innuendoes. Possibly the typewriter may have made some omission here, for as your letter reads this portion is to me without sense. I, of course, do not know what you have heard, and I am speaking only for myself and for those of the present Trustees who have expressed themselves unreservedly to me; if I were called upon to express an opinion on that point I would say but I know no one of the Trustees who sincerely believes that the Academy is entitled to the bequest in question, save yourself. I am not unmindful of the letter that you quote from Dr. Sewall, but we have never discussed the matter with him, and I do not know what his opinion would be after hearing the other side of the question.

Let me suggest, what I am sure Dr. Sewall would freely admit, that this is a purely legal question, and according to the law of the Church as to influx into a man, according to his distinctive use, Dr. Sewalls judgment and opinion on matters more in the line of his use, would and should have more weight than an opinion given as this was in answer to your letter, and about as technical a point of law as could well be raised.

Seventh. As to what occurred at the meeting at your office, I am compelled to say that my recollection differs entirely from yours. I do not think that I said anything about the change of location of the College from Philadelphia to Bryn Athyn, and I must ask Mr. Worcester if he did not raise this simply as a point that should be met and answered, and without in anywise implying that that bare technical objection should determine this case. It is possible that I may have joined in this question. My objection had a much deeper loot and I did not express it then, in the office of the Academy and before you and your associates of the Academy, because of what would seem to be an unnecessary discourtesy; in view, however, of what you have said, and that there may be no misunderstanding of my position, I will now say that I understand Mr. Kramph to desire to provide for a New Church University, and the idea and standard that he had in his mind was the New Church as it was understood and accepted at the date of his will, viz.: 1854, and at that time the Academy had not been dreamed of, and his friend, Mr. Benade, held or professed views in consonance with those of his associates of the General Convention.* In my judgment, the Academy is not, and never was a New Church body, is not a Church at all, but in its essence is opposed to all the distinctive principles of the Lords New Church. I have formed this judgment because of its violence to the teachings of that Church in forming and expressing judgments about the states of others, from its Babylonish pretensions in many respects, especially as to its being the celestial of the New Church, from the fact that its constant effect is disintegration rather than conjunction, and because some of its alleged teachings are contrary to the Decalogue. This only in part expresses my opinion, but it will be seen that my objection is not a merely technical one.

* See this directly contradicted in letters by Mr. Benade and Mr. Kramph, pp. 89, 98.

Eighth. I know of no other institution that claims this fund and I presume that the institution that Mr. Kramph had in mind will yet have to be formed; I doubt whether that is practicable, and I could wish that I could see my way dear to conceding that the Academy is entitled, but to my mind, having accepted appointment as Trustee, I am morally and spiritually bound to see that accomplished which I was trusted to bring to pass.

Ninth. But my time compels me to be more brief, and to make my remaining answer shorter and perhaps at the expense of an appearance of courtesy. It is not true that I conceived the idea of having Mr. Seward made a Trustee; it is not true that I undertook to approach the various members to secure his election, and in justice and fairness I ask you to produce some proofs of these alleged facts. As the course pursued is the one sanctioned by long usage, and especially as it the only feasible course, I can see no reason for any further action in this matter, as you have stated that you do not favor the election of Mr. Seward, and the other five Trustees have favored it and have by deed appointed him. It was out of consideration for you that I did not at first call upon you, but two letters having failed to produce any response, I did call at your office; the only response I received was a request to give you the addresses of the Trustees, for the purpose now manifest. You will recall that I promptly and cheerfully gave you the information for the Trustees to assemble and take joint action in this matter of appointing successors to deceased Trustees, but no one knows better than yourself that, scattered as they are, this is impossible. You tried to secure a meeting for a much more vital and important matter than naming a successor, and the only ones who attended were Mr. Worcester and myself, which should be perhaps accepted as evidence of our desire to comply with your wishes. However that may be, the course pursued in the present case is precisely the same as that which you have heretofore pursued without question of its regularity. As bearing upon the question of regularity of this course, I might say that there is before me as I write a deed of appointment, joined in by S. S. Rathvon, William H. Benade, Alexander Officer, N. C. Burnham, and R. L. Tafel, the deed stating that it was executed by Rathvon at Lancaster, October 3, 1883, and then held up by Mr. Benade till November 27, 1880, who then secured the appointment of an Academy man, whose name he has written in his own hand in purple ink; it was then promptly executed by N. C. Burnham at Pardee, Kansas, December 4, 1886; by Alexander Officer at Chicago, December 4, 1886; and by R. L. Tafel at London, England, January 13, 1887. These were all original Trustees appointed by the testator.

Tenth. Your meaning in the concluding part of your letter as to what is manifest to any unprejudiced person, and about the Trustees of the Academy, and injecting Mr. Seward into this matter, is not very clear, and does not seem to be very courteous, indeed, seems almost childish in its assumption as to the selection of the Trustees of the Academy, but until your meaning is more clear I refrain from expressing any further opinion than as implied in the foregoing.

Eleventh. I am surprised that you should have thought it proper even necessary to write such a letter to me without first conferring with me and being sure of your facts and premises, and especially that you should have written to all the Trustees as you have, and sent them a copy of your letter to me. Of course, this compels a similar course on my part, and I feel like apologizing to my co-Trustees for this violent trespass on their time and patience, but as you make some new charges in the letter to the Trustees, it is necessary to refer to one or two points.

It is not true that I have in various ways, or indeed in any way, been obstructing the settlement of the estate, unless, indeed, believing that you are utterly wrong in supposing that there is no necessity for Trustees under Mr. Kramphs will, and that he intended the Trustees of the Academy is such an obstruction. The fact is I have given a good deal of time to the effort to effect a settlement, and have had at least two conferences at Lancaster with the Hon. W. U. Hensel, the attorney for the estate. As to the spirit of mischief and revenge, I would suggest that you are here violating the law of the Church as to the judgment of a mans motives, and while the exact converse of this proposition seems to me to be the truth, viz.: that you are the one trying to subvert the intentions of Mr. Kramph, nevertheless, I am willing to believe that you are doing so because you mistakenly think you are right, and I do not accuse you either of having a spirit of mischief and revenge, or of being a dog in the manger.

Twelfth and finally. I trust you will retract the word dishonest, and I could only wish that you could produce better evidence of magnanimity and generosity than the case cited. You have often referred to this case, but never till today have I heard from you or anyone else the basis for this claim on the part of the Academy. Of course, you will understand that I express only my own opinion, but as a lawyer I would say that I never saw such a shallow claim ever presented before. Under your own statement of facts, the Academy surrendered nothing. The bequest was to the New Church Theological School, and aside from all the proofs that could have been adduced as to the affiliations of the testator, there was no other the New Church Theological School in the world. People are still living who remember the flight made by the Academy and its High Priest, Mr. Benade, against this appellation at the Convention in Washington years ago. You know what the testator meant, and I believe you intend to be honest....

The presumption stands, until the contrary is proven, that we are all honest or intend to be honest, and we should claim no credit for such a primary virtue, and certainly should not pride ourselves on its possession.

Yours truly,

(Signed) WM. MCGEORGE, JR.

MR. WORCESTERS REPLY TO MR. PITCAIRN.
MR. JOHN PITCAIRN. June 19, 1907.

Dear Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your letter in regard to the Kramph will. I have understood from Mr. Hensel that the question first to be decided is, who are the Trustees recognized by the Court.

If the persons heretofore regarded as Trustees are recognized, then, probably, the question of the institution to receive the money comes before us. If we are called on to decide that question, I hope we shall all consider it in a fair and unprejudiced way. It will certainly be my effort to do so. I regret that you should attribute the motives that you do to Mr. McGeorge, for opinions he may have expressed. I shall reserve judgment until I hear his reasons for the ground he takes.

I trust we shall be able to consider and settle the whole matter as one of simple business, in an honest and impersonal way.

Truly yours,

(Signed) WM. L. WORCESTER.

The Rev. Frank Sewall, on receipt of Mr. McGeorges letter of the 19th of June, 1907, seat to Mr. McGeorge a letter resigning his position as Trustee, giving as his reason, that inasmuch as he believed that the fund should go to the Academy, he was not in agreement with the remaining Trustees and ought not therefore to be a hindrance to the purpose for which the Board continues its existence. In reply to this letter, Mr. McGeorge wrote a long letter, dated June 26, 1907, a copy of which was sent to all the Trustees, in which he states that after consultation with Mr. Worcester they had arrived at the following conclusions:

First. Your resignation could only be accepted by the whole Board of Trustees, and should only he considered by the Board after a most careful consideration of all the facts of the case, and after giving you an opportunity of conferring with the whole Board, and fully understanding its position, and then deciding in full freedom what your duty requires.

Second. That your position in the matter, as stated by you, instead of being an adequate reason for resigning, is perhaps the strongest and best reason why you should continue. Certainly neither one of us would consent that you should resign because you differ, or think you differ with us as to the proper disposition of the fund, or in any other respect.

Third. We think that any action now would be premature. It has been claimed that the present Board of Trustees is unnecessary, and that the Trustees of the Academy are the only proper parties to act, and if this is judicially decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction the question is settled for all of us, and so far as I am advised, all the Trustees would cheerfully submit to such a decision.

Fourth. That until it is decided whether the Board, as at present constituted, is the proper Board to take and administer the fund in question to be derived under the Kramph will, it is a work of supererogation for that Board to attempt to decide the question as to what it would do with the fund, or indeed to decide any question at all as nothing may be before it for its decision.

Fifth. If the fund should be awarded to the Board as at present constituted, it is hoped and believed that all will try to do as perfect justice as with their human limitations is possible, and when the question really arises it is not at all certain that the Board will not reach similar conclusions as your own, even if they reach them from a different standpoint, for while I think the majority of the Trustees are firmly of the opinion that the Academy is not at all such an institution as Mr. Kramph has in mind, and while they have the written evidence that Mrs. Kramph and her family shared in that opinion, and for that reason have latterly selected Trustees who were not connected with the Academy, yet the Trustees realize that it will probably be impracticable to set up such an institution as Mr. Kramph did contemplate, and that the only feasible thing will be to turn the money over to the Academy, hoping that the good in it will prevail, and that as many of its members in the past have turned away from teachings and practices which they saw to be contrary to the doctrines of the New Church, so the whole institution may eventually follow their example and come back to the old standards.

I think the foregoing correctly represents the ideas of Mr. Worcester and myself, but it is quite possible that in passing through my mind I may have unconsciously given my own personal tinge to what Mr. Worcester said. At least so much is perfectly clear--that neither of us desire or think that it would be right for you to resign.

I presume that what you say about the Academy being a New Church institution, and that a Court of Law would probably be compelled to decide that it was because its members profess a belief in the Doctrines of the New Church, and avow the acceptance of all the Writings of the Church as Divine and authoritative, is in answer to what I said about the Academy in my letter to Mr. Pitcairn. Perhaps that portion of my letter should be explained. You will remember it was written very hurriedly, and amidst constant interruptions incident to my going to New York for several days. I regret that there seemed to be a necessity for writing it, certainly in the crude form in which it appeared, but there were some things said, and more were implied, in Mr. Pitcairns letter to me, and especially in what he wrote to the other Trustees, which were not calculated to develop a very calm and judicial frank of mind, and I was not willing to let it stand for a minute that my only reason for withholding the fund was the technical question as to whether the Academy was really located at Philadelphia.

In making that clear, I probably said more than was necessary, and when I had an opportunity to read over what was written go hurriedly, I regretted the form more than the substance of what I had written, for while resenting what seemed to me very improper assertions and innuendoes, I did not want to be discourteous, but only perfectly frank. You will understand that I always make a distinction in my mind between the Academy and what the institution seems to stand for, and individuals more or less directly connected with it, for many of whom I have not only a sincere respect, but great affection. I am perfectly conscious that the Academy they love and believe in is a very different institution from that which I see and oppose. Moreover I sympathize and have always sympathized in much of what I understand the Academy stands for, so much so that I have been frequently accused of being more of an Academician than anything else. I thoroughly sympathize in their loyalty to the Writings, and doubt if anyone could possibly attach more of authority to them than I do. But in respect of this authority, I regard it as due to them as a whole, and not to detached portions, which it seems to me have had undue importance given them. The Writings themselves make it very clear that all heresy arises from giving undue importance to things true in themselves, but putting them out of all true relations to other truths, as making one article of faith superior to all others. A. C. 362....

When, therefore, I said the Academy was not a New Church body, I did not, and do not, say that its members do not profess a belief in the Doctrines of the New Church, and do not avow acceptance of all the Writings of the Church as Divine and authoritative, but I meant that such profession, belief and avowal do not make them New Church if the tendency of their teachings and practices is contrary to its primal principles. While, of course, I may be in error as to the tendency and effect of their teachings, I presume that it is not necessary to argue the foregoing proposition. I think, however, the Academy has settled its status as to whether it is a New Church body according to the standard in the mind of Mr. Kramph at the time of making his will, by its own action and judgment.

Whatever professions or avowals may be made, it must be perfectly clear that the Academy does not hold such a belief in the doctrines of the New Church, and does not accept the Writings in the same way that the General Convention does, because the contrariety in their belief and acceptance of these was so great that they felt that they could not remain in connection with it, and voluntarily withdrew. That would seem to prove conclusively that their University or School is not New Church according to the standards of the General Convention, and consequently not according to the standard in the mind and intention in the will of Mr. Kramph, who was a member of the Convention, and appointed only prominent members of that body as his trustees.*

This is the fact and difficulty that stares us in the face, and I can see now that I should have merely called attention to this very obvious fact, and not otherwise attempted to characterize the Academy.

* See these assertions contradicted on pp. 87, 88, 108.

On November 20, 1907, the real estate in Lancaster was sold for fifty-two thousand five hundred dollars, leaving as the residuary estate, after the payment of all claims, the sum of upwards of thirty-seven thousand dollars, a much larger amount than had been anticipated.

Mr. McGeorge thereupon called a meeting of the successor-trustees, which meeting was held at his office, Tuesday, December 3, 1907.

There were present at this meeting six of the seven successor-trustees: Messrs. John Pitcairn, Wm. McGeorge, Jr., and John H. Metzler, Rev. Mr. Frank Sewall, and Rev. Messrs. W. L. Worcester, and S. S. Seward.

Mr. McGeorge endeavored to secure a permanent organization of the Board, which endeavor was resisted by Mr. Pitcairn, on the ground, that in view of the existence of such an institution as was contemplated by the will, the fund should be handed over by the executors immediately to it, thus leaving the Trustees with no functions and therefore with no occasion for organization.

Mr. McGeorge expressed himself as decidedly of the opinion that the Academy not entitled to fund. Mr. Seward took the same ground, though not quite positively, admitting that he had not recently read the will, and was not quite clear in his mind as to its provisions. Mr. Worcester had not yet made up his mind. Dr. Sewall believed that the fund should go to the Academy, although he thought that it should be first received by the Trustees, and by them passed on to the ultimate beneficiary. Mr. Metzler did not express an opinion. When the matter of permanent organization was finally pressed, Mr. Pitcairn withdrew from the meeting as a protest against the legality of organization.

After his departure, nothing was done, apparently, beyond organizing, providing for the employment of counsel and reviewing the credentials or appointment of the several Trustees.

On December 17, 1907, Mr. Pitcairn wrote a letter to the several Trustees, explanatory of the claim of the Academy, and asking them by what right should the fund be handled by the Trustees? He then concludes,significantly, in view of later events:

The Academy of the New Church has also asked me to notify you that, inasmuch there is no reason why,--if you gentlemen familiarize yourselves with the situation,you should incur expenses of any sort, they will resist any effort you may make to charge the fund in hand with such expenses, whether they be for counsel or otherwise. And in order that you may have full opportunity to become familiar with those facts which you seem to have overlooked, the Academy wishes me to add that it will gladly have its counsel, A. S. Weill, Esq., of this city, meet you or such of your number as you may select, for the purpose of a free discussion.

Some of you gentlemen seemed to feel the other day that it was a pity this dispute should be dealt with formally and publicly. The above suggestion is made for the purpose of learning whether formality and publicity can be avoided. If the New Church is to be made the subject of notoriety, the responsibility must rest with you.

To this only Mr. Worcester and Mr. McGeorge made reply; Mr. McGeorge sending his letter, not only to Mr. Pitcairn, but also to all the other Trustees.

Mr. Worcester admitted, under date of December 18, that Mr. Pitcairn had made his view of the case quite clear; and asked for a personal interview in order that he might explain the attitude of the remaining Trustees. The case still did not to him clear, but he asserted for himself and for all the Trustees that he would be absolutely satisfied with a decision of the Court.

The only important portion of Mr. McGeorges letter is included in the following paragraph:

It is perhaps sufficient to say that the Trustees appointed by Mr. Kramph and their successors, appointed under the obligation of the moral and spiritual bond with which Mr. Kramph bound them, are the ones who were trusted by Mr. Kramph to provide for the chartering of a New Church University for Universal New Church Education, and no more volunteers could be recognized by the courts if they sought to perform these duties. Moreover, the education provided by the Academy, if their official organs are to be believed, instead of being universal, is intensely specific, based, not upon the general doctrines of the Church as drawn from the internal sense of the Word, and confirmed by the letter, as the Servant of the Lord teaches us all doctrine should be confirmed, but in direct violation of both an education so unfortunately specific, and so opposed to the moral sense of the vast majority of New Churchmen, that a graduate grounded in these teachings could find no employment, and thus the money and time used in such education would be a mere waste--a waste which those who believe in the doctrine of use cannot countenance.

To this no answer was returned.

Without making an appointment, Mr. Worcester, on January 8, 1908, called upon Mr. Pitcairn, but failed to find him disengaged. He thereupon wrote to Mr. Pitcairn the following letter:

Dear Mr. Pitcairn: I was sorry not to see you this afternoon, but knew that it must be doubtful, exiling without an appointment.

I wished especially to assure you, for myself and for the other Trustees, that we shall not act in this matter from any unfriendly or personal feelings. If there have been any such feelings, they will be put aside and will not influence our action. We are decidedly of opinion that the Trustees should he recognized, and that the institution to benefit by the bequest should be approved by them as fulfilling the conditions of the will. This, however, must be decided by the Court.

If the Court decides that discretion rests with the Trustees, I can say for a majority at least of the Board, that we would promptly and cheerfully award the money to the Academy, but for one reason,the position that we understand the Academy to take upon the so-called permissions in CONJUGIAL LOVE.* We honestly and earnestly believe that the position of the Academy on this subject is not in accord with the spirit or letter of the Doctrines of the New Church, and that it has done and is doing a great injury to the Church. We also feel assured that Mr. Kramph would not have sympathized with the position of the Academy on this subject, and would not have left his money to sustain it.

If we were called upon at the present time to decide the question, we should feel compelled on this account to decide that the Academy dose not fulfil the conditions of the will.

* Italics ours.

At the same time, I will say, frankly, that there is no other institution, either existing or in prospect, which does fulfill the conditions. We should be compelled for the present to hold the fond in trust. Personally, I am sanguine enough to believe that the Academy, if it does not now, will some time fulfil the conditions. I believe this for the reason that I feel so confident of the truth upon this subject, and so sure that the truth will in the end prevail.

There is no ill will, and no personal feeling, in our position; but we have the earnestness and the courage of a very deep conviction, and must be faithful to what we devoutly believe to be true.

Sincerely yours,

(Signed) WM. L. WORCESTER.

Upon Mr. Pitcairn writing in response to this letter, that he would he pleased to know wherein Mr. Worcester thought the Academy wrongly interpreted the work on Conjugial Love, Mr. Worcester replied that it did not seem possible or useful to enter upon a doctrinal discussion, the essential points of which are of course familiar both to you and to me. He also refused to give the name of the counsel employed by the Trustees.

Conflict in open Court was now inevitable. No more time was wasted in hopeless controversy or attempt at convincing the successor-trustees.

The Archives of the Academy Library were searched for historical evidence bearing upon the case. The value of the documents brought to light in this search in showing Mr. Kramphs true attitude to New Church education, to Mr. Benade and to the General Convention, is sufficiently evident by the records of the Audit. And the documents and all that they meant were to the Court conclusive, for the Academy claims were recognized without exception. But the doctrine of CONJUGIAL LOVE had been brought into the case; and in his final adjudication the Court observed:

Except for this [i. e., what the judge called making a scortatory doctrine the prominent feature] there would have been a simple distribution, scarcely influenced by a debatable legal problem and wholly free from sensational disturbance. (See p. 302.)

The danger to the Church as a whole, in complicating the case with an attack on the Academy teaching as to morals, was fully realized by those who conducted the case for the Academy. Mr. Worcesters letter to Mr. Pitcairn of January 8, 1908, was the first intimation which the Academy had that this was the one objection of the Trustees, and the possibility of its being brought into Court was discussed. Shortly before the trial the rumor was heard that Mr. McGeorge seriously intended to bring this matter up, but even then the Academy was not disposed to credit the report. Nevertheless, in view of that possibility Bishop Pendleton drew up a paper summing up the teachings of CONJUGIAL LOVE on the subjects of Fornication and Concubinage, and giving some general conclusions drawn therefrom.

This was done in order that the Church might bear public testimony to its faith in Divine Revelation.

This paper was read before the General Council of the General Church on May 10, 1908, just one week prior to the time when it was expected that the trial would take place. The trial was postponed from time to time until July 2, 1808. This date coming after the meeting of the Joint Councils (Executive Committee and Council of Ministers) in Glenview, Illinois, the Bishop took the opportunity to submit the Declaration to the Councils. It was, by them, formally adopted as representing the position of the General Church.*

* See the Declaration in full, p. 461.

We now naturally turn to the trial itself.

PART IV.

The Legal Proceedings.

[blank page]

PART IV.

THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

1.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

The following presentation of the proceedings in the Kramph Will Case is based on: 1. The official stenographic report of the taking of the testimony; this is published, under the title Appendix, a book of 288 pages, which includes the documents offered in evidence. 2. Stenographic reports of testimony, and of all arguments of counsel made in Lancaster, taken by the Rev. W. H. Alden. 3. Stenographic reports of arguments before the Supreme Court at Philadelphia and Pittsburg. 4. The printed briefs of counsel, and the typewritten briefs of counsel for the Academy, and of Mr. William McGeorge, Jr., at the re-argument in Lancaster. All the above documents are on file in the Academy Archives, and are open to public inspection.

It may be noted that in the taking of testimony, we have in nearly all cases followed the official report. Occasionally, however, this report, manifestly owing to the reporters ignorance of the subjects involved, makes no sense; in these cases we have followed Mr. Alden. Apart from the making of sense there is no material difference between the two reports, except that the official report does not include arguments by counsel on objections, nor the testimony by Mr. Seward which was ordered stricken out by the Court.

2.

THE WILL.

Mr. Kramphs will, dated November 30, 1854, is a long document, comprised in nineteen sections. We give below a summary of the whole will, quoting in full such portions as have any bearing on the matter in hand.

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only God of Heaven and earth, Amen.

I, Frederick John Kramph, merchant tailor of the City of Lancaster, in the State of Pennsylvania, being now in perfect health of body and of sound mind, memory and understanding, but fully aware of the uncertainty of human life and the duty of making a seasonable and orderly arrangement of my worldly affairs, do make and publish this, my last Will and Testament, in manner and form following, to wit:

1. The testator directs that his widow shall receive out of the rents and incomes of my homestead property on the corner of North Queen and Orange Streets the annual sum of six hundred dollars.

2. Directs his Executors to conduct his business for a year after his death, under the management of my present foreman and friend, Simon S. Rathvon, at a salary of $1500., (which sum I partly consider as a donation or payment for many extra services he rendered me for many years). At the end of the year the Executors may transfer to Mr. Rathvon the balance of my stock in trade at a discount of fifteen per cent below cost. The Executors are also to leave to Mr. Rathvon my storeroom and fixtures with the goodwill thereof, for a fair annual rent,.. giving him the preference over all other applicants. Should Mr. Rathvon not desire this arrangement, the business is to be closed and the store rented.

3. Directs his Executors to sell all his real estate with the exception of the homestead property, as soon as can be advantageously done. The proceeds, as well as all other moneys, to go to the discharge of all claims; all money remaining and not otherwise bequeathed, to be invested, for the benefit of my estate, the final settlement of which shall only take place when my youngest and surviving child attains its majority.

4. Gives his widow entire charge of my children during their minority, and she is particularly enjoined to attend faithfully to their spiritual and natural education and, with the advice of the hereinafter named special guardians of my children, to provide for their instruction in the different branches of science, when arrived at a more advanced age.

5. Directs that the Executors shall hold the homestead property in trust for the benefit of the estate until the majority of the testators youngest child.

6. Gives directions as to the education of the testators son and daughter.

7. Bequeaths the sum of $10,000 each to his two children, the same to be paid as soon as the beneficiaries are of age.* Two thirds of the daughters share, however, is to remain as a lien on the homestead property; after her death, the capital is to be divided among her children; but if she leaves no issue, it is to revert to the estate.

* See Codicil, p. 141.

8. Deals with the testators books, of which the Latin and German New Church theological and philosophical works are to go to testators son, or, if he dies before reaching majority, to the Lancaster New Jerusalem Society.

9. Gives a bequest to an indentured servant.

10. Deals with the family burial lot.

11. Directs that the Evangelical Protestant Orphan Asylum at Heidelburg in which I was raised from my ninth to my fourteenth year and furnished with clothing during my four years apprenticeship, having retained my little patrimony to make themselves paid for their expenses in my behalf and sent me their bill for the balance due them, the Executors shall pay this bill (about fifty dollars) but no interest, as soon as convenient.

12. Whenever my youngest child arrives at the age of twenty-one years, and not before, and after all claims against my estate shall have been paid, I give, devise and bequeath to the First New Jerusalem Church of Lancaster, in Pennsylvania, or in ease said church be no longer in existence as an organized body, to the First New Jerusalem Society or Church of Philadelphia, the sum of five hundred dollars, to be invested, and the interest thereof applied by the trustees of said society or church for disseminating the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, either by sermons and lectures or the purchase and distribution of such of the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and other New Church authors as they may deem most efficacious and calculated to be of general utility.

13. Under the same restrictions as are mentioned in the preceding paragraph I give, devise and bequeath to my executors or trustees, in trust, the full sum of six hundred dollars, with which they shall purchase copies of the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and place the same in the libraries of such German universities as are still destitute of the same, as is more fully shown or stated in my private written instructions addressed to my executors.

14. Provides for the contingency of the death of testators children and the final settlement of the estate being made without leaving issue. In this event one thousand dollars is to be equally divided among the sisters of the testators deceased wife; and a like sum to his sisters and a brother, now or formerly residing in Heidelburg and Sehlierbaeh, Germany; thirdly, my collection of the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and other New Church authors to the New Jerusalem Society of Lancaster; fourthly, another additional legacy of five hundred dollars to the New Jerusalem Society of Lancaster, to be applied in the same manner as is mentioned in paragraph 12; and, fifthly, the net balance of my whole estate then remaining to the trustees named and designated in the next following paragraph, and for the purpose and under the same restrictions therein mentioned.

15. The net balance of my whole estate, consisting of my homestead property, corner of North Queen and Orange streets, encumbered with the lien or liens of the share or shares of my daughter or daughters, as the case may be, and with the mortgage or mortgages thereon given for borrowing money towards the payment of the share or shares of inheritance coming to my son or sons, as the case may be, and all moneys which may then be due to my estate, after all expenses for the final settlement for the same shall have been paid, I do give, devise and bequeath unto the following named seven trustees, to wit: Rev. Richard deCharms, of Philadelphia;* Henry A. Carpenter, of Lancaster county, Pennsylvania; Simon S. Rathvon, of Lancaster city, Pennsylvania; N. Francis Cabell, Esq., of Warminster, Nelson county, Virginia;* Rev. William H. Benade, of Philadelphia; Nathan C. Burnham, of Philadelphia, and Rudolph Tafel, of Annapolis, Maryland; in trust, For the purpose of endowing a university of the New Jerusalem, to be founded in the consolidated City of Philadelphia, for universal New Church education in these United States, and for the education of New Church ministers, who are to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, as laid down in the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg--said New Church University to be under the care and superintendence of a body of trustees rendered corporate by a perpetual charter legally obtained. And my executors are herewith directed, immediately after the final settlement of my estate, to transfer the aforesaid property, with all its encumbrances, into the hands of the before mentioned trustees, who shall pay the annual interest of the lien or liens of my daughter or daughters, as the case may be, unto her or them, each and every year, semi-annually, during her or their natural life; and at the decease of my daughter, or any of my daughters, if she should leave lawful heirs, the capital amount of her inheritance, so far as the same is invested as a lien on my homestead property, shall be paid in equal shares to the respective heirs of my daughter or daughters.

But if my daughter, or any of them, should die without leaving issue, her share of inheritance, so far as the same is invested as alien on my homestead property, on the corner of North Queen and Orange streets, shall become the property of the aforesaid New Church University, and remain forever vested in my aforesaid homestead property. All moneys which may accumulate or come in, shall be immediately invested in real estate or perpetual ground rents, all the incomes of which are to remain the unalienable property of the said New Church University, and be appropriated to the purposes set forth in the charter. Provided, that my aforementioned trustees shall not transfer any part of the income of my property designated for the benefit of the said New Church University, until sufficient funds are provided, either by subscription or endowments of other contributors, or by the accumulation of this bequest, to yield, independently of the cost of the university buildings, a clear annual income of four thousand dollars. And, provided further, that whenever a perpetual charter for the establishment of such a New Church University shall be obtained, the above mentioned trustees, or if prior to the final settlement other trustees should have been appointed by charter, my executors shall transfer all the rights and trust given to them by this, my last mill and testament, to the trustees then and in that case lawfully appointed and constituted in and by said charter. And it is most expressly my will and desire that the seven hereinbefore named trustees shall, by accepting the trust hereby confided to them, severally feel themselves morally and spiritually bound, in case any of their number may be removed by natural death, resign, or cease to be an acknowledged member of the New Church, before the objects of this trust are obtained, to confer immediately; or as soon thereafter as practicable, and choose or appoint by a vote of a majority of their whole number, some well known and undoubted member of the New Jerusalem Church in the United States, as a trustee in his place--especial care being taken that there shall be never less than two of the said seven trustees members of the New Jerusalem Church and citizens or residents of the consolidated City of Philadelphia, and never less than two of the said seven trustees members of the Lancaster Society and citizens or residents of the City or County of Lancaster; but if proper and suitable New Churchmen in the City or County of Lancaster could not be found to be members of the Board of Trustees for the purpose of establishing a University of the New Jerusalem in the City of Philadelphia, then, and in that ease only, one or, as the case may be, two trustees shall be elected in their place from the consolidated City of Philadelphia by the votes of a majority of the other trustees. And it is hereby expressly stipulated, that in the perpetual charter to be obtained for the said university nothing shall be contained which would be in any manner contrary to the intents and purposes expressed in this my last will and testament.

Furthermore, I hereby will, direct and order, that in case the before named seven trustees, or any remainder of them, shall not, as hereinbefore directed, appoint a successor or successors to any one or more of their number removed as aforesaid, so that an entire and bona fide fulfillment of this trust may be jeopardied, then the Orphans Court of the City of Philadelphia do see that suitable trustees be appointed for the faithful and full carrying out of this my last will and testament. And in the possible contingency of true and faithful members of the Lords Church of the New Jerusalem, in these United States of America, not being appointed by either of these appointing powers for the full and faithful carrying out of this my last will and testament in these, its premises and behests, then it is my will and I order that these bequests for New Church purposes shall be appropriated for the purposes of promoting and spreading the doctrines of the New Jerusalem in Great Britain and Ireland, and in Germany and Switzerland, in the following
manner, to wit: Then and in that case I give and bequeath unto the trustees appointed by the General Conference of the Ministers and other Members of the New Church, signified by the New Jerusalem in the Revelation, in the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, all the before mentioned bequests in trust, hereby empowering them, the said trustees, to sell the real estate and to invest the net proceeds thereof, together with any moneys then forming a part of said bequests, in ground rent or landed security in England, the annual income of which shall be divided into two equal parts: One equal part thereof to be appropriated to the purpose of promoting and spreading the doctrines of the New Jerusalem in Great Britain and Ireland, and the other equal part shall be appropriated for the same purposes in Germany and Switzerland, under the superintendence of the General Conference in England, until there shall be a convention or conference established in Germany and Switzerland, founded on true New Church principles, in which case the one equal half or part of the annual income of the capital, invested as above mentioned, shall be paid to said convention or conference, to be used by them according to their own judgment.

* See Codicil, p. 141.

16. Provides that a receipt from a legatee shall be a full discharge.

17. I do hereby nominate and appoint my friends, Dr. Nathan C. Burnham, of Philadelphia; L. I. Demuth, of Mount Holly, New Jersey, and Rev. William H. Benade, of Philadelphia, joint special guardians of my children, entreating them, in conjunction with my beloved wife, to superintend their education, so that they may become intelligent and affectionate receivers of the Holy Faith of the New Jerusalem, which I firmly believe will best insure them a useful and happy life here, and a blessed eternity hereafter.

18. Makes provision to ensure that the testators children shall not dispute a conveyance to the sister of testators deceased wife.

19. Appoints my dearly beloved wife Sarah, and my trusty friends, Joseph Ehrenfried, Simon S. Rathvon and Henry A. Carpenter,* all of Lancaster County, and their survivors, Executors of the Will.

* See Codicil, below.

Nearly two and a half years after the signing of the above will, Mr. Kramph executed a Codicil, dated May 27, 1857.

This document directs the sale of testators furniture within one year of his death, one thousand dollars of the proceeds to go to his widow.

Being firmly persuaded that the Lord intrusted me with some earthly goods for the purpose of performing good uses therewith, and believing it not to be useful for young men to have the control over much money, as it sometimes proves a temptation to them and prevents them from using their talents and energies, therefore the testator directs that his son shall not receive the capital sum bequeathed to him, until his twenty-fifth year.

The Trustees named in Section 15 of the will are changed, by the substitution of L. C. Iungerich, of Philadelphia, in place of the Rev. Richard deCharms, and Alexander Officer, of Chicago, Ill., in place of N. Francis Cabell, Esq.

Provision is made for the parents of testators wife, and Lorenz I. Demuth is substituted as Executor in place of H. A. Carpenter.

3.

THE CHARTER OF THE ACADEMY.

We present below a summary of the Charter and By-Laws of the Academy of the New Church, showing the purposes of that institution, and that its Directors can act as Trustees to receive bequests.

Article I. Styles the Corporation The Academy of the New Church.

Article II. The Academy of the New Church shall be for the purpose of propagating the Heavenly Doctrines of the New Jerusalem and establishing the New Church signified in the Apocalypse by the New Jerusalem promoting education in all its various forms. Educating young men for the Ministry, Publishing Books, pamphlets and other printed matter and establishing a library.

Article III. The place of business and office of the said Corporation shall be in the City of Philadelphia.

Article IV. This Corporation shall have perpetual existence.

Article V. Names twelve Corporators, including Rev. William H. Benade, Rev. Nathan C. Burnham, Rev. Rudolph L. Tafel, and Mr. John Pitcairn. These twelve with their successors and associates shall have all the powers and privileges given or allowed under the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and they shall have power to use a Common Seal, confer Degrees and grant Diplomas as other colleges and universities.*

* The words shall have power the charter as amended in 1878.... universities were added to.

Article VI. Limits the Directors or Board of Finance to not less than three, and names Rev. William H. Benade, John Pitcairn, and two others as such Board for the first year.

Article VII. Gives the Academy power to receive endowments and to hold real and personal estate.

Of the By-Laws only Section 5 of Article IV has any bearing on the present case. It reads:

Section 5. The Board of Directors of this Corporation shall constitute a Board of Trustees, to receive, hold and invest property or funds, whereof the interest and income only, shall be applicable to the uses of this Corporation, and it shall be their duty as such Trustees, in the management and application of such property or funds and the increment thereof, to strictly conform to the expressed intention of the donor or donors thereof.

4.

THE QUESTION INVOLVED

Section 16 of the will reads, in and, as follows:

And, provided further, that whenever a perpetual charter for the establishment of such a New Church University shall be obtained, the above-mentioned Trustees, or if prior to the final settlement other Trustees should have been appointed by Charter, my Executors shall transfer all the rights and trust given them by this my last will and testament, to the Trustees then and in that case lawfully appointed and constituted in and by said Charter.

The meaning of this clause is:

1. Until final settlement of the estate all funds and other property ultimately intended for the New Church University are to remain in the hands of the Executors.

2. At final settlement the Executors are to turn over the residuary estate:

a. To the Trustees named in the will or their successors; these Trustees, whenever a perpetual charter for the establishment of such a New Church University shall be obtained, are then to transfer all the rights, etc., to the Trustees or Directors of said University. Or,

b. If prior to the final settlement other Trustees should have been appointed by charteri. E., if prior to the final settlement, a New Church University shall have been already established with the necessary qualifications, then the Executors are to transfer all the rights, etc., not to the Trustees of the will, but to the Trustees or Directors of the University, the Trustees of the will being superseded and their trust never having ripened.

The Academy claimed:

1. That it filled the requirements of the will, being founded in the consolidated City of Philadelphia; having an annual income of $4,000 independent of university buildings; and being an institution for universal New Church education and for the education of ministers, etc.

2. That the fund should be paid to its Directors or Trustees, by the Executors.

The McGeorge Trustees contended:

1. That the Trustees named in the will were themselves to establish a university, or, at the very least, were to have the decision as to what university shall receive.

2. And, in any case, that the Academy did not comply with the will, because:

a. It was not located in Philadelphia.

b. It did not teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, said doctrines being the doctrines of the General Convention, and the Academy being a schismatic body.

5.

THE AUDIT IN LANCASTER.

The hearing was opened in the Orphans Court of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, before Judge E. G. Smith, on Wednesday, July 1, 1908.

The Academy of the New Church was represented by A. S. Weill, Esq., and the Hon. W. U. Hensel; the McGeorge Trustees, by John A. Coyle, Esq.;* and the heirs by T. Roberts Appel and Charles G. Baker, Esqs.

* Mr. Coyles partner, Wm. H. Keller, Esq., also took an active part for the Trustees.

Messrs. Baker and Appel were grandsons-in-law of Mr. Kramph.

Mr. Hensel presented a petition on behalf of the Academy, asking the Court to appoint the Directors of that body, Trustees to receive the funds under the will of Frederick J. Kramph.

Mr. Appel presented petitions for the award of $500 to the Lancaster Society, and $600 for the purpose of placing copies of Swedenborgs theological writings in German universities. These two claims were admitted by all parties.

Mr. Coyle claimed the balance of his clients, the successors of the Trustees named in the will. To this Mr. Hensel objected on the ground that the Trustees represented by Mr. Coyle were not the Trustees under the will, nor by appointment, as provided by the will, and because the Academy is entitled to this fund.

Mr. Baker asked that the entire residue of the estate should be distributed among the heirs.

The Succession or Trustees.

To prove the appointment of the present Trustees, Mr. Coyle offered in evidence:

A deed of appointment signed by the five survivors of the original Trustees at various dates from 1883 to1887, naming John H. Metzler and Samuel H. Carpenter as successors of L. C Iungerich and Henry A. Carpenter, deceased.

Two letters from Mrs. Sarah M. Kramph to Mr. McGeorge, dated February 2 and February 8, 1893, expressing pleasure that Mr. McGeorge had accepted the nomination of Mr. Officer to become one of the Trustees; making adverse comments on Mr. Benade, and recognizing Mr. McGeorge as one of the Trustees.

A statement by Mr. Kramph, dated Lancaster, Pa., January 28, 1893, describing the administration of the Estate, after Mr. Kramphs death, and its present condition. The statement shows that there was no money at that time to form a trust to carry out Mr. Kramphs purpose. The writer had, however, tried to carry out his wish to keep seven ready as prospective Trustees to step in when the trust does come.

A letter from Mr. John Pitcairn to Mrs. Kramph, dated Philadelphia, May 9, 1893, accepting his appointment as Trustee.

A letter from S. S. Rathvon to John H. Metzler, dated Lancaster, February 7, 1887, informing the latter that he had been a Trustee, in certain contingencies, of the last will and testament of F. J. Kramph, deceased, to fill a vacancy caused by the death of one of the members.

A paper, undated, by Mr. Benade, nominating Messrs. R. M. Glenn, J. Pitcairn, and Hugh L. Burnham as additional Trustees under Mr. Kramphs will as soon as a trust shall have been created (see p. 105, seq.)

The first; witness, MR. GEORGE F. RATHVON, of Lancaster, Pa., was then called by Mr. Coyle. The examination was confined to showing that the witness had been appointed a Trustee. The appointment had been made in writing, but the witness doubted whether the letter was now
in existence.

In cross-examination, Mr. Hensel showed that the witness had never had a meeting with the Trustees, and had never exercised any power as Trustee, except to sign certain papers sent him from time to time, namely, the appointments of the Rev. W. L. Worcester, Rev. Frank Sewall, and Rev. S. S. Seward.

Mr. Coyle then called JOHN H. METZLER, of Lancaster, Pa., who testified that he had been notified of his appointment as Trustee in 1887; that George F. Rathvon had been appointed to succeed Dr. S. S. Rathvon, and that Mr. William McGeorge had been elected Trustee about the same time as Mr. Rathvon. The witness also testified that, with a possible exception, he had taken part in such business and such action as was taken by the Trustees posterior to his election.

In cross-examination, Mr. Hensel shelved that there had been no organization of the Trustees, no minutes of meetings, nominations, or elections, and that all elections had been made by papers sent around to the persons who claimed to be Trustees to sign them.

On re-examination, the witness testified that there had been one meeting of the Trustees, held in Philadelphia, on December 3, 1907 (see p. 128).

Mr. Coyle then offered in evidence:

A paper, dated April, 1897, signed by Messrs. George F. Rathvon, Officer, Pitcairn, McGeorge, and John N. Metzler, appointing the Rev. W. L Worcester a Trustee, in place of R. L. Tafel, deceased.

A paper, dated March, 1899, signed by Messrs. McGeorge, Worcester, Pitcairn, Rathvon, and Metzler, appointing the Rev. Frank Sewall, in place of Mr. Alexander Officer, deceased.

A paper, dated May, 1907, signed by Messrs. Metzler, Rathvon, McGeorge, Worcester and Sewall, appointing Rev. S. S. Seward, a Trustee in place of Rev. W. R. Benade, deceased (see p. 105, seq.).

All the documents thus far offered by Mr. Coyle were offered to prove the existence of the present Board of Trustees, Messrs. Metzler, Rathvon, Pitcairn, McGeorge, Worcester, Sewall, and Seward.

The REV. W. L WORCESTER was then called by Mr. Coyle, and testified that he was a member and Secretary of the Board of Trustees under the Kramph will; that the Trustees had held a duly called meeting in Philadelphia, in December, 1907, which was attended by all the Trustees except Mr. Rathvon. In answer to a question as to the occasion for this meeting, the witness testified:

A. It was called because we thought that the time was near when we thought that the funds might be handed to us, and it was time that we organized.

Mr. Coyle then offered in evidence a petition to the Orphans Court of Philadelphia, signed by Annie E. Rengier, Administratrix of the Kramph Estate, dated October, 1903, setting forth the informal appointment of the successor trustees;

and that no formal organization of said Trustees ever took place, no minutes have been kept, and no records are in existence of their proceedings, and praying that the Court appoint Messrs. Benade, McGeorge, Pitcairn, J. H. Metzler, G. F. Rathvon, Sewall, and Worcester, Trustees for carrying out the provisions of the will committed to the seven original Trustees (see p. 114).

Mr. Coyle then called MR. WILLIAM MCGEORGE, JR., and asked:

Q. Where do you live? A. Philadelphia. That is to say, I live just outside the city limits. I do business in Philadelphia

Mr. McGeorge testified that after he had become one of the Trustees, all deaths of the Trustees, with the exception of Mr. Benade, had been reported by Mrs. Kramph. Also that he had been perfectly aware of the condition of the Kramph Estate during the period posterior to his own election, and had agreed with Mrs. Kramph that it was not desirable to sell until a fair price could be obtained.

The witness further testified that the petition of Annie E. Rengier for the appointment of Trustees had been refused by the Philadelphia Orphans Court.

On cross-examination he explained that the objection appended on the back of the petition was made by Justice Hanna.*

* This objection, written in lead pencil, was as follows: What right has the Petitioner to ask for the appointment of Trustees. The Trustees have the power to fill vacancies, if they will not, then the parties interested in the trust should petition the Court.

The Case for the Academy.

Mr. Hensel opened the case for the Academy by offering in evidence the Charter of that institution and amendment thereto (see p. 141).

Mr. Coyle objected on the ground that there was

No provision in the will that if gentlemen come together and establish an academy at or near Philadelphia, and have an annual income of $4,000... they are entitled to this fund. Because the will excludes from participation anybody except those appointed by Mr. Kramph, and the successors elected by them.... They have the authority to go ahead and get the Charter if they wish to. If they were chartered at the time of final settlement, the estate was to be transferred to that institution so chartered by them, and if they were not chartered, as they have not been, then to the Trustees themselves.

The Court admitted the Charter and amendment because he had gathered from the will that the Trustees were expected to pay the money finally to an incorporated organization.

Mr. Coyle answered that if the Charter were to be ruled out, there could be no further question here, but if it was admitted, a second question would arise. The Academy would have to prove that they are located in Philadelphia, and that they have an income of $4,000, and that they are teaching the things for which the trust was established.

THE COURT. This itself [i. e., the Charter] would. not be sufficient, This is preliminary proof which is necessarily admitted.

MR. KELLER. Both questions will arise.*

* The reader will notice the intimation here given by Messrs. Coyle and Keller, that the teaching of the Academy is to be attacked. See p. 165.

Mr. Hensel then offered in evidence the By-Laws of the Academy, and directed the Courts attention to Section 5, Article IV, giving the Board of Directors authority to act as Trustees. (See page 142.) This showed that the Directors of the Academy are in fact Trustees, although named Directors in the Charter.

Mr. Doering Testifies.

The REV. CHARLES E. DOERING, called by Mr. Hensel, testified that the funds of the Academy, of which he was Treasurer, yield independently of the University buildings, a clear annual income of $4,000.

Mr. Coyle objected on the ground that the Academy was not entitled in any event, and, moreover, because the whole purpose of the testator was to provide chiefly with this fund.

Mr. Doering then described the physical property of the Academy, and testified to its investments being $500,000, and yielding an annual income of about $30,000.

He further testified that he was a clergyman of the New Church, and that the Academy taught the doctrines of the New Jerusalem or the New Church, which doctrines are founded on the Writings of Swedenborg.

On cross-examination it was then brought out that the buildings of the Academy were in Bryn Athyn, and outside the limits of Philadelphia; and that prior to 1899 the Academy did not have from investments a clear annual income of $4,000.

The Standard of Authority in the Church.

Mr. Coyle then turned his attention to the doctrines taught by the Academy.

After the witness had testified that the Academy was affiliated with the General Church of the New Jerusalem, he asked:

Q. Is there a church known as the General Convention that teaches the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the Writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg?

Court here remarked that he supposed many churches taught that doctrine, but they were not making claims here.

Mr. Coyle stated that the Academy is making a claim that it does teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem. I propose to ask the witness ... whether he is not mistaken about that, and whether his Church is not a Church that has seceded from the Church that does teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem.

The Court did not think the question pertinent; it was not necessary to go into other denominations.

MR. COYLE. I do not want to go into any other denomination. What I want to show is that this Academy is affiliated with the General Church, and that the General Church is a seceding body from the General Convention of the established Church, which was the established Church from the time the will was made ... right up to 1891, when they seceded from that body; and that they do not teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, as laid down by the General Convention, which is the main body.*

* This claim that the General Convention is the Church of the New Jerusalem was persisted in by counsel for the Trustees, both by implication and by direct statement, throughout the legal proceedings.

Mr. Hensel, in supporting his objection, argued that the test of the will was the doctrine taught by Emanuel Swedenborg, and not by one or other interpreters of it. The question is whether this institution teaches the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg; not as to the particular interpretation they give, but whether they teach this doctrine. The other side was trying to introduce in cross-examination a collateral attack upon the Academy as not teaching the doctrines of Swedenborg. Whether some other body taught them, or was influenced by them, was not material.

Mr. Coyle quoted the words of the will, shall teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down by the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg.

There was a General Church at that time (he continued), and today an independent body of men come into this Court and say give us this money, and the witness is put upon the stand, and asked, Do you teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down by the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg, and he answers, Yes. Certainly I have a right to ask him what they are, and what they teach, and whether they are not in conflict with the General Convention of the Swedenborgian Church.

The Court stated that this was not the question ruled out, but the question as to whether some other church taught these doctrines. If this field was opened, the case would never be finished.

Mr. Coyle answered that the Court could not escape the decision as to whether these people do not teach a doctrine diametrically opposite to that of Emanuel Swedenborg; and when they put a man or the stand to say what they do teach, I have a right to ask if they do not teach doctrines absolutely subversive of his teaching.

He then supposed a case of a legacy to establish a Catholic University. If some men calling themselves a Catholic University, but teaching different doctrines, claimed such legacy, he could not be precluded from showing that they were heretical.

Mr. Hensel interjected that it could not be said that the Presbyterian Church was not Christian because it did not agree with the Catholic Church.

Mr. Coyle referred to the Supreme Court as saying that you are general body.... There is an authoritative source to go to, and they have to show that they are in line with that.

The Court admitted this so far as the title to real estate was concerned, but the present question was one of carrying out the testators intentions.

MR. COYLE. The very purpose of my inquiry is to show that they are not following out the intentions of Mr. Kramph.

I want to ask him whether the Swedenborgian Church at the time Kramph lived and of which Kramph was a member, and up to the time of his death, was not the General Convention of the Church of the New Jerusalem, and that this body which calls itself an independent body did not then exist.

At the Courts suggestion the question was amended.

Q. You say that this Academy teaches the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down by the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg. Is there any authoritative interpretation of those doctrines in this country, and to which you could point showing as a matter of conviction that the doctrines you do teach are the doctrines of Swedenborg? A. The doctrines themselves.

Q. The doctrines themselves? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are those doctrines interpreted by the General Church to which your Academy belongs? A. No, sir.

Q. Are they interpreted by each individual judgment? A. Each man judges for himself.

Q. ... Do you not have some fountain head in the way of organization or a convention or body which fixes, which construes those things, and fixes the discipline of the Church? A. As to discipline, certainly, but as to interpretation--every man is free to interpret for himself. That is one of the foundations of our Church--that every man shall be free.

Q. To interpret the doctrines as he chooses? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How can you say that the Academy teaches the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down by Swedenborg? A. Because that is the teaching of the doctrine--that a man shall be free.

Q. You mean that the interpretation of those writings by the men who have charge of this institution is, in your judgment, the doctrine of Swedenborg? A. No, sir; I dont mean that.

Mr. Coyle asked some further questions dong this line, but could not get the witness to admit any other standard of interpretation than in the matter of acknowledgment of the doctrines ... that they are the authority. He continued:

Q. Are there certain doctrines that are laid down as a necessary acknowledgment to membership in what you call your Church? A. Nothing but baptism into the New Church.

Mr. Coyle then asked who fixed the requisites for baptism, but on objection by Mr. Hensel, the Court remarked that the examination might be shortened if we consider the intentions of the testator. He noted that the will was introduced by the ejaculation, In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the only God of Heaven and Earth, Amen. He had never heard that expression before, and was not certain of its meaning, but it was evidently the testators understanding of the fundamental principle on which Swedenborgs doctrine was based. If proof could be offered as to whether the Academy or any other institution taught this principle the testimony might be narrowed.

Mr. Hensel referred to the language of the will, as showing that the testators idea was that the contemplated university shall teach the doctrine as laid down by the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg. It had nothing to do with discipline of the Church. There were many Lutheran Church with different discipline and organization, but they were all Lutheran. The witness had testified that this university does teach the doctrine of the New Jerusalem, as laid down in the Writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg--not as interpreted by the Convention, the Council, or Conference, but that it teaches the doctrines as laid down by the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg. He illustrated his meaning by reference to the Catholic, Presbyterian, and other Churches.

Though these Churches had different translations, interpretations and doctrines, though they were many sects and subject to different organizations, yet all accepted the Old and New Testaments, all taught the Christian doctrine, and each was recognized by the others as Christian.

I dont care how many kinds of Swedenborgians there are. If there is one Swedenborgian Academy that teaches the doctrines and interprets them as laid down by Emanuel Swedenborg, I do not care whether there are any other branches of the church that recognize them as putting the proper interpretation, but it puts some interpretation, and that is all we contend for.

Mr. Coyle maintained that such argument was evasive. The Catholic Church could not claim a legacy to a Presbyterian institution, because both are called Christian.

Mr. Hensel answered that he hail been speaking of a legacy to the Christian Church, to which Mr. Coyle retorted:

This is not a legacy for the Christian Church, it is a legacy to a General Church established by men, known as the General Church of the New Jerusalem.* A Church organization to be entitled to a fund for such Church organization must show that it submits to the regular order; therefore when the witness says that his Church teaches the doctrines of the New Jerusalem I have a right to ask whether they are the doctrines taught at the time of the making of this will,... and now at the time of this distribution.

* The General Convention is evidently meant.

Mr. Hensel asked whether the will said anything about the General Convention or any particular Swedenborgianism.

Mr. Weill added that Mr. Coyle was in error when he said that the General Convention was the one Church in existence at that time.

The founders of the Academy had not been connected with the Convention in the way understood by Mr. Coyle. The will provided for an institution that taught the doctrines of the New Jerusalem down in the Writings of Swedenborg, and the Academy wished laid be to be judged on these words. He added that it might as well be said that the Academy and the General Convention were not on excellent terms, and in this proceeding the latter body fighting the Academy.

The Court here remarked, The General Convention does not appear.

To this Mr. Weill answered:

Those Trustees are members of the Convention. It is in fact an exploitation of the feeling between these two bodies. The Academy of the New Church wishes to be judged by the terms of the will, they do not wish to be judged by the standards of the General Convention.

It would be difficult to show that when Mr. Kramph left his property to a university to be established he was very sympathetic with the General Convention, for if, for some reason, such university should fail, the only Church which might have applied for it under Mr. McGeorges theory was eliminated, and the money is left to the General Conference of Great Britain.

Mr. Keller supposed a case of a legacy left to a university of the Reformed Church. If after the death of the testator a seceding body of that Church should start a university, it would be entirely precluded. The purpose of the cross-examination to show that these people have departed from the doctrines of the Swedenborgian Church as they were taught when Frederick J. Kramph made his will.

The question as to baptism was then allowed. Mr. Coyle resumed:

Q. Who fixes what are the essential requisites of baptism in your Church? A. The Council of Ministers.

Q Therefore the Council of Ministers fixes those requisites and construes the doctrines of Swedenborg? A. They teach the doctrines of Swedenborg.

Claim That Convention Is the New Church.

The examination then went into the names of the General Church, and the time of its formation, which was shown to be the year 1891.

Q. In 1891 and previous to that time, and in 1857 and the time of Mr. Kramphs death, and previous to that time, the time of the making of his will and for many years previous, was not the Swedenborgian Church in this country known as the General Convention? A. No, sir.

Q. It was not? A. No, sir; not in any such a wide range.

Q. Was there a governing body of the Swedenborgian Church known as the General Convention in the United States?

Mr. Hensel objected on the ground of irrelevancy. All persons, he said, who taught the doctrines of Swedenborg came within the range of the will, and no particular ecclesiastical body could claim to be the only Church teaching those doctrines.

Mr. Coyle explained that he wanted to show that there were certain doctrines established by the General Church that continued until 1891, when these folks seceded.

The Court asked whether persons not in any way affiliated with the Swedenborgian faith would not have standing in this case, provided they complied with the conditions of the will.

Mr. Coyle answered that they would not have any standing unless they could show that they were teaching the doctrines of Swedenborg as laid down by the Church, and not even then unless the will provided that others than the Trustees could get the fund.

THE COURT. I do not interpret the will so strictly. The Church no doubt was right, and the testator may have been wrong, but the testator unquestionably as to one point had a view as to the teaching of Swedenborg, and I have not heard whether this institution or any other taught his view.

Mr. Coyle here interrupted, We propose to show that.

The Court added that any organization of men, regardless of religious affiliation, would be entitled if they complied with the conditions of the will and proved that they taught that Jesus Christ was the only God of Heaven and Earth.

Mr. Coyle admitted this, if that was all the testator had said, but he maintained that in this case there is a Church and it is the Swedenborgian Church in this country, known as the General Convention. That was the governing body. It put a certain interpretation upon the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and taught certain doctrines from them. The people that come before you today teach a doctrine diametrically opposite to the doctrine stated in the plain language of this willdiametrically opposed to the doctrines of the Church to which he said this money should go. We will prove, if necessary, specifically what that doctrine is.

The Court stated that it would allow proof that the claimants did not teach the doctrines as laid down by Swedenborg. Mr. Coyle then asked:

Q. Was there a governing body of the Swedenborgian Church known as the General Convention in the United States?

Mr. Hensel objected that the question was not in line with the ruling.

It was competent to prove that the Academy did not teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, but he objected to making the teaching of the Convention the standard of Swedenborgianism. It was immaterial to prove that the Academy did not submit themselves to the discipline of a certain branch of the Church. Mr. Kramph had left his legacy to an institution, not under the direction of Mr. McGeorge, or under Mr. Pitcairns, but, he said, to teach the doctrines of the New Church. The Academy says, We teach it. They come and say, We are entitled to the money because we are Trustees under the will, and that is the only issue here.

Mr. Coyle maintained that there was a further issue. They cannot stop by saying doctrine of the New Jerusalem, and say they are not teaching a doctrine diametrically opposed to the doctrine taught by the General Convention. The witness has denied that they are governed by anybody, and finally, after fifteen minutes, he was obliged to admit that certain doctrines were fixed by a Council of Ministers, certain requisites established by them. I have got to proceed by this tooth-pulling arrangement to get at what the General Church taught, how it differed from the Church he loved and the Church he knew.

The Court again ruled, You may prove that this claimant is not teaching the doctrines that this testator contemplated it should teach. Nevertheless he thought that the ejaculation at the head of this will meant something. He did not think it necessary to go into the question as to whether there were other Swedenborgian churches at the time of the will. If the institution is teaching the doctrine as the testator understood the doctrine of Emanuel Swedenborg, then it is in a position to claim this legacy. The other side might show either, that notwithstanding this fact, the Trustees only were entitled; or, that, even if the Trustees were not entitled, the Academy could not receive it because they did not teach the doctrine of Emanuel Swedenborg as the testator contemplated that it should be taught.

Mr. Weill celled the Courts attention to the assumption by Mr. Coyle that the Church at the time of the making of the will. At that time, 1854, neither the testator nor one of the seven Trustees named in his will, nor one of the three men appointed Guardians, nor one of the three Executors, nor in fact anybody named in his will was a member of the General Convention.

Mr. Hensel was content that the witness should be examined in any conceivable way that related to the teaching or non-teaching of Emanuel Swedenborg, but he protested that it was not cross-examination to ask him with reference to any relation of loyalty or disloyalty to any particular Church organization. The questions had not been on the point as to whether the Academy taught this or that doctrine of Swedenborg, but whether it submitted to the discipline of the General Convention. That had no relation to the intention of the testator, and was entirely outside the question.

Mr. Appel, for the heirs, here noted that the will constantly referred to the Trustees as members of the New Jerusalem Church. It did not say, a person who acknowledges the teaching of Swedenborg The Court therefore should find out what the Church is under the terms of the will. There had been a split, and while the Trustees had been members of their organization continuously, he did not think the Trustees of the New Academy were members of the New Jerusalem Church sufficiently to come within the description of the will. They have got to teach the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg, and become members of the New Jerusalem Church.

THE COURT. A member of the New Church.

MR. COYLE. We deny that they are.

The Court being disinclined to follow this conversation, Mr. Coyle then asked for the third time:

Q. Was there a governing body of the Swedenborgian Church known as the General Convention in the United States?

The question was again objected to by Mr. Hensel, and in his argument Mr. Coyle quoted 41 Pa. 9, to show that those who submit to the regular order of the Church are the true congregation, and that seceders lose all rights to church property. He also cited Macbeths Appeal, 207 Pa., an appeal by the Swedenborgian Church of Pittsburg, involving the question as to which of two local organizations was the real body. He wished to get at what the Church of the New Jerusalem was, but

How am I going to show what it was, if you wont let me show what the General Convention,--the general body,--established as doctrines essential for membership in it? If you shut me off, how am I going to show it?

The Court said that witnesses could be called to testify that in their view they have the teaching of the New Jerusalem Church; and the Academy could be asked whether they teach it, and the question may arise whether it be a different opinion.

MR. COYLE. What I propose to do is to bring the head of our Church. I do not want to be precluded by this witnesss statement.

MR. HENSEL. The Academy does not come in here as a branch of the Church. It comes as an independent corporation,... and claims to comply with the conditions of this will. It was a university founded for universal New Church education, and for the education of ministers who are to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem Church; not as prescribed by a Council or Conference or Synod, but as laid down in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. The Trustees of this institution were not required to hold any relation to the New Jerusalem Church, because Mr. Kramphs idea had been to apply his fortune to the promulgation of this doctrine by an organized university, without regard to the religious predilection of the men in control.

To illustrate his arguments, Mr. Hensel referred to the denomination called The Christian Church. Supposing an endowment for a university to teach the doctrines of the Christian Church, no one would pretend to say that this denomination could claim the fund on the ground that the Catholic, for instance, was not called a Christian Church. It did not matter who founded the Academy. Any body that teaches the doctrines of Swedenborg, and trains candidates in that doctrine is competent to receive this bequest, that is the only body qualified.

The Court suggested proceeding with the examination, as to whether or not this institution taught the doctrines.

The Writings, the Standard of the New Church.

Mr. Coyle then asked:

Q. What are the doctrines of the New Jerusalem Church? A. It would take weeks to give all the doctrines of the New Jerusalem Church.

The Court then, mindful of the ejaculation introducing the will, asked the witness whether the Academy taught that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only God of Heaven and Earth. Being answered in the affirmative, he asked:

Q. What is meant by the only God of Heaven and Earth? ... Possibly most men recognize one God, and therefore if Christ is God, He is the only God, and if the Father is God, He is the only God, and if the Holy Ghost is God, He is the only God.... The testator has used an expression distinct from anything I have ever heard, that is [he has] entirely eliminated the three Persons of the Godhead. A. That is one of the fundamental doctrines of the New Church that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only God of heaven and earth, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

In answer to Mr. Coyle, the witness further stated that he knew of no difference between any body in the New Church on that point.

Q. But there is a vast and serious difference of doctrine ... between the different bodies of the Church in this country?

Objected to and withdrawn.

Q. What are the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg? A. I would like to produce all his works as my answer to that.

Hereupon Mr. Hensel added, We have the Writings in Latin.

The Court then suggested that the examination he narrowed to the question as to whether the Academy teaches the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg, the doctrine that Christ is the only God,--to which Mr. Coyle said, If you wont let me ask whether any other branch teaches anything else, how are you going to show it?

The Court did not see how it could be shown in cross-examination.

Mr. Coyle then returned to the question which he had previously withdrawn, as to whether there were not differences in the teachings of the different bodies of the Church. The question was again objected to by Mr. Hensel, on the ground that it was immaterial how many other bodies teach the doctrines called Swedenborgianism. Court ruled that the cross-examination must be confined to the point that the institution does not teach the doctrines of Swedenborg, as contemplated by the testator, that Christ is the only God.

Mr. Coyle then asked whether the doctrines taught by the Academy were the same as the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as taught at the time Mr. Kramph made his will. The witness answered that Mr. Kramph

believed and studied all the doctrines of the New Church. We teach every one of our students to read those doctrines, and they form part of the course of the theological school.

Q. While they read the same books, do you teach a different interpretation of what those books contain, those Writings, from what was taught, and what was interpreted at the time of Mr. Kramphs death? A. I think not.

Q. Then there is a difference in your teaching of today from the teaching of the doctrine of the New Jerusalem at the time of Mr. Kramphs death? A. I dont think there is any difference between our teaching of the doctrines and Mr. Kramphs.

Q. Do you know? A. I know that Mr. Kramph belonged to the body of the Church that seceded from the General Convention.

Q. How do you know that? A From the records of the Central Convention to which he belonged.

Q. Where are those records of the General Convention to which he belonged? A. They are here in Court and can be produced.

The Court refused to order the records produced on the ground that the witness had answered the question with sufficient clearness.

Mr. Coyle then asked, What else are the doctrines of the Church of the New Jerusalem?

The question was disallowed on objection by Mr. Hensel. The Court reminded Mr. Coyle that he could not make a case entirely out of cross-examination, adding (in answer to Mr. Coyles remark that he had the right to cross-examine the witness on every statement he makes), We have the testimony that the claimant teaches these doctrines absolutely as the testator understood them.

MR. COYLE. I do not understand why your Honor wont let me go into this. I cannot prove that this institution does not teach the doctrines of the New Church unless they are compelled to produce and show all the doctrines that they do teach. It is not for us to call in the mob* to show that the doctrines are interpreted differently from what they were previously.

* In his use of the term mob Mr. Coyle seems to be referring to Mr. Doerings testimony that every member of the Church must make his own judgment as to the doctrines taught in the writings. He desired to show that the doctrine of the New Church was fixed by an authoritative body, and not by the mob which he could not call in (see p. 166).

MR. HENSEL. We must bring in some fifty volumes in Latin.

THE COURT. We have here an institution. The testimony shows that it has the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg in its library; that those Writings are taught by the professors of this institution, and that they were the doctrines as the testator understood them.... If you can prove that the professors do not teach that doctrine, we will hear the evidence, but we will not consider all the interpretations which may be put upon the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

The Morality Question Introduced.

It was at this point that Mr. Coyle introduced the subject so largely dominating the case, namely, the question of marriage, with the intimation and subsequent open charge that the Academy promulgated immoral doctrines. When the question of the Academys charter was before the Court, Mr. Coyle had intimated that the question of doctrinal differences would have to be entered into (p. 149); and later, he had openly stated that the Academy taught doctrines absolutely subversive of Swedenborg (p. 152; see also pp. 151, 158, 159, 160), but he had not then intimated the particular nature of the doctrines to which he referred.

Now, however, he supplied this intimation:

Suppose that our clients have precisely the library that; this institution has, and we teach that the marriage the is solemn and cannot be broken, and another institution with the same books teaches that the marriage the can be broken--I am using this only as an illustration--would your Honor say that because each had the volumes in its own library, it made no difference what each taught out of those books? Suppose that from those books Mr. Kramph believed that certain things were right and moral and the opposite wrong and immoral, and the claimants come here and admit that they have from those same books the opposite of that, wouldnt your Honor want to know that?

THE COURT. You must tell something specific.

MR. COYLE. I can only come to something specific after starting with the general and shutting out the mob. I am using the mob by calling in every man who has any individual judgment with regard to it.

THE COURT. If you showed that the teaching was opposed to the law of the land, we should consider it. If the claimant taught improper conditions as regards the relations of the sexes the fund would not be awarded to any such institution.

Mr. Coyle then stated that he wanted the Court to know what the Church was when Mr. Kramph made his will, and therefore he was asking the witness to explain his statement.

Mr. Hensel reminded the Court that the Writings of Swedenborg were a general body of doctrines, forty or fifty volumes in Latin, and it was necessary that the cross-examination be specific.

Mr. Coyle then continued the cross-examination. The witness testified that there were two general bodies of the Church in the United States, namely, the General Convention and the General Church of the New Jerusalem.

Mr. Coyle then asked when the former body was founded; but Mr. Hensel objected to this whole line of examination. The Academy, he said, was not to be judged by its relation to any legislative body.

He was supported by the Court, who added that he would not go into the general question of interpretations of Emanuel Swedenborg. The Academys evidence showed what its teaching was, but if the other side could show that this evidence was not true, the Court would listen.

Mr. Coyle repeated his question:

Q. When was the General Convention established?

THE COURT. Suppose it was established in 1907, what difference does it make?

MR. COYLE. If I follow that up by showing that the organization is in opposition to the general body----

THE COURT. I dont think it makes any difference, and I do not so understand it.

MR. KELLER. It [the will] does not say doctrine of Swedenborg, but the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as taught by the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg.

The question was then allowed, and in answer to this and other questions, the witness showed that the Convention was established some time in the last century, and the General Church in 1897.

Mr. Coyle then again returned to the question as to whether there was any difference in the teachings of the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as found in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg between the General Convention in 1858, when Mr. Kramph died, and the General Church.

The question was disallowed on Mr. Hensels objection that it did not matter how they interpreted the Writings, whereupon Mr. Coyle asked:

Will your Honor tell which teaches the doctrines of the New Jerusalem?

THE COURT. Very probably both do.

The question was then re-formed to read:

Q. Does the General Church teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as the General Convention which was in existence at the time of Mr. Kramphs death taught?

Mr. Hensel again objected on the ground of irrelevancy, and because the witness was not born at the time referred to, and could not tell what the Church was teaching.

Mr. Coyle then appealed to the Court, who stated, You may ask this question, Whether or not at the time Mr. Kramph wrote this will it was taught it was the doctrine of Swedenborg that the Lord Jesus Christ was the only God of Heaven and earth.

The question was thus asked by the Court himself, and, being answered affirmatively, Mr. Coyle resumed:

Q. Is there any difference between the teachings of your Church ... from what the New Church taught in 1857 ... in any respects? A. Mr. Kramph accepted the Writings of Swedenborg as Divine authority.

The Charge of Immorality.

And now came the question to which all this had been leading,* and which, in its turn, led to such important consequences, including the bringing into doubt the legal status of the whole New Church. But for this question and all that it involved, namely, bringing under the judgment of a civil tribunal the doctrines revealed in Conjugial Love, there would have been, to quote the language of the Court, in the Second Decree, a simple distribution scarcely influenced by a debatable legal problem, and wholly free from sensational disturbances.*

* See p. 165.

* Second Decision, p. 302. See also p. 388. See Mr. McGeorges explanation of the circumstances leading to this question, and Mr. Worcesters comment on the same point, p. 411, seq.

Q. Does your Church teach as part of the doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem the right of promiscuous intercourse, or the moral permissibility of, under certain circumstances, carnal connection outside of the marriage state?

In answer to Mr. Hensel, Mr. Coyle explained the purpose of the question, namely:

First to show that such a thing was lever taught by the Swedenborg Church; and, secondly, that it is against morality.

Objected to by Mr. Hensel as not being cross-examination. Allowed.

Q. I should say to that, No.

Q. What does it teach on that point? I might not have gotten it right in the question. A. We teach just as stated in Swedenborg in the work, CONJUGIAL LOVE, on that subject.

Q. What does it teach?

MR. HENSEL. The work is the best evidence.

MR. COYLE. I am cross-examining as to whether their teaching is not against morality.

MR. HENSEL. It is a collateral attack.

MR. COYLE. You have assumed the burden, and I have the right to ask the question. You have put him on the stand to show that you teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem.

Q. What does Swedenborg say on that subject?

MR. HENSEL. The works are the best evidence.

MR. COYLE. Then get the works.

Q. Can you tell me in a word whether the doctrine of sexual intercourse outside of the marriage state is not taught as permissible?

A. Not as you ask it.

Mr. Hensel here repeated his objection, namely, that Swedenborgs Writings are the best evidence. If the witness was asked what Swedenborg taught, he should be

permitted and compelled to produce the book itself. That is the best evidence of what Swedenborg teaches. It may be susceptible of two or three interpretations, as the Sacred Scriptures are, as to concubinage, but the question being, What does Swedenborg teach, this man has not the right to provide interpretation himself. He can produce the book; that is the only competent answer to that question.

MR. COYLE. Take that book, and I may teach from it that it is absolutely wrong for a man to have sexual intercourse, and the Academy teaches the opposite. Not what does Swedenborg say as contained in that book, but what do you teach about it. A. Not as you put it.

Q. How is it taught? A. As I understand your question, you ask whether we teach adultery as permissible.

Q. Not at all, sir. A. Then I misunderstood your question.

Q. I ask you what you teach upon the permissibility of man and woman to have carnal. connection outside of the marriage state? A. Just what is in this book.

Q. What do you teach from that book? A. We read this book from beginning to end.

MR. HENSEL. All he knows about it is that that book is in use as a text-book. He does not teach it. He meant what he says, that this book is our standard. He has got a right to produce the book.

THE COURT. The witness is a minister. If he does not know what they teach he can say so, and if you know what it is you may read the book.

Q. What do you teach from this book? A. We teach that Conjugial Love is the jewel of human life.

Q. What do you mean by that? A. The marriage of one man with one woman.

Q. And what more? A. That includes it all.

Q. Does that include the permission of carnal intercourse between man and woman outside of the marriage state? A. When there is separation.

Q. When there is a separation between man and wife it permits the carnal connection of the separated parties with others? A. If I must, your Honor

Q. Answer that question first and explain. Answer that question and explain afterwards. A. It does not permit the wife.

Q. But it permits the man? A. It permits the man when they are separated.

Q. Then you teach the doctrine that if a man separates from his wife, he is permitted to have carnal intercourse with other women? A. Not indiscriminately; no, sir.

Q. With a woman to whom he is not married? A. Yes, sir; when he is separated from his wife. I will substantiate that by giving this book in evidence. (Offering CONJUGIAL LOVE.)

Mr. Coyle then gave up the witness, who was taken by Mr. Appel.

Q. Is not that true before a man and woman are married? A. Yes, under certain conditions.

Q. A man who has never been married can have carnal connection with a woman to whom he is not married? Marriage is not necessary to carnal connection in every case? A. Where marriage cannot be entered into. Under certain conditions that are laid down in here.

Q. Do you teach that a minor who cannot get the parents consent to marriage, that a minor can have carnal intercourse with another person?

A. We merely follow what is here.

Q. Do you teach if a minor cannot get the parents consent to marriage, that that minor can have carnal intercourse? A. I say, No, if it is a proper question. And that question has never come up and we have never taught it. We teach these doctrines.

Q. When do you teach that a single man can have connection with a woman? A. Those reasons are given here. We teach what is given here.

Q. What do you teach them? Dont you teach in the university? A. I teach mathematics.

The witness was evidently nervous, and the Court remarked that if he was able to answer, there was no reason why he should not, but if it was not in his line, he could say so.

The question was then asked:

Q. Under what circumstances do you teach that unmarried people can have carnal connection? In answer, the witness commenced reading from CONJUGIAL LOVE, Some men cannot without harm restrain the appetite of the sex from going forth into fornication, but he was interrupted at this point by Mr. Hensel. To questions by the latter and also by Mr. Coyle, he answered that he was reading from Searles translation of CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 450. Mr. Coyle then asked:

Q. I want to know what you teach from that book. Under what circumstances do you teach that unmarried persons can have carnal intercourse? A (reading). With some men the love of sex cannot without mischiefwithout hurt--be totally coerced--from going into fornication.

Q. And then you would permit to go into fornication--according to that? A. I say we simply teach what is here.

Q. You teach that it is permissible to go into fornication if they cant help it?

Is that right? A. Your Honor, I can answer that by presenting the statement of our Church on this point.* I think that would answer every question.

* I. e., the Declaration, see p. 461.

THE COURT. I think that goes right to the point of what his Church teaches,--the statement of the Church.... I think it is very pertinent to have a copy of this.

MR. HENSEL. Let him put it in as his answer,--the authorized statement of the Bishop.

A. I want to put that in as my answer.

THE COURT. I understand the witness to say this is what they teach,--I think it is very pertinent.

Mr. Coyle objected to the admission of the Declaration, because this is the speech of the Bishop on the whole case.

The Court, however, admitted the document, saying, If this is a concise form of their teachings, it seems to me it goes directly to the gist of the matter.

Mr. Coyle then asked:

Q. Under that, you teach the doctrine of the permissibility of carnal connection of man and woman under certain conditions outside of the marriage state?

Objection was made by Mr. Hensel on the ground that the paper speaks for itself. The objection was sustained by the Court, who held that the Declaration was itself the answer. In answer to a question by the Court, Mr. Coyle stated that it was not necessary to read the Declaration.

Q. You teach it to be lawful? A. Yes, sir

Q. Does the old Church, the Church to which Mr. Kramph belonged when he died--I mean the Swedenborgian Church as it existed in 1858--teach any such doctrine, that it was allowable for man and woman unmarried to have carnal connection?

Mr. Hensel objected, but was overruled.

The Separation of the General Church from the Convention.

A. I assume that Mr. Kramph was thoroughly informed--

Q. I do not ask what you assume? Do you know? A. I am not positive, but I think they did.

Q. You think they did? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do they teach it now? A. I think so.

Q. You think so? A. Yes, sir.

Q. No you know? A. Not positively. I know that some do. I dont know that all do.

Q. Dont you know that your branch of the Church broke away from the General Convention in 1891, because you wanted to teach this doctrine of permissibility of carnal intercourse and it was not permitted by the General Convention? A. No, sir.

Q. That is, that your teaching of this doctrine was repugnant to the doctrine of the Church, and you seceded for that reason? A. No, sir; had that been the case they would have been expelled, but they seceded for another reason.

Q. What is, that? A. Because the Convention had violated its constitution--not allowing freedom to the associations to act within the limits of their own borders, which was granted them in their constitution?

Q. Then your body seceded and formed the General Church? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And your General Church teaches those doctrines that I have referred to with regard to the sexes? A. Yes, sir. It is not anything new.

Q. I did not ask you that, but whether you taught it? A. Yes, sir, it is what we teach.

Q. And the Academy teaches that? That you teach as the doctrine of your Church on it to your young men and young women in your Academy?

A. Yes, sir, as far as I know.*

* Later in the hearing the witness corrected this answer (see p. 212.)

On re-direct examination, Mr. Hensel brought out that the statement made by the Bishop constituted the witnesss answer.

Conjugial Love Offered in Evidence.

Mr. Weill then took the witness in hand, and after showing that the Academy itself had made no translation of CONJUGIAL LOVE, he offered that work in the original Latin edition, together with English translations by Goddard [Boston edition] and Searle.

Mr. Hensel suggested that the witness point out to the Court the portion which related to this subject, and in answer to questions by Mr. Weill, the witness showed that it was the second part to which Mr. Coyle had been referring.

Mr. Weill then led the witness to give the names and addresses of all the present Directors of the Academy and to state the date of Swedenborgs birth and death, and that he wrote in Latin about fifty theological works.

He led the witness to testify that the term, New Jerusalem Church, was a generic designation that all New Churchmen,--all believers in the doctrines of Swedenborg--were referred to as belonging to the New Jerusalem Church; that the Church had distinct organizations in this and other countries, having no connection with each other, and with no central governing power.

Mr. Weill then addressed himself to the question raised by Mr. Coyle.

Q. You have said that under certain conditions,--in your answer to Mr. Coyle you refer to conditions named in the book when you used that expression? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are there any conditions except those named in the book? A. No. sir.

Q. That is Swedenborgs book called CONJUGIAL LOVE that has been offered in evidence? A. We recognize no other conditions, because we hold that book to be Divine authority.

Q. You, all churchmen, believe that Swedenborg was inspired? A. I think so.

Q. And that he had Divine Revelations which are contained in these books? A. Yes, sir.

Q. One of which is CONJUGIAL LOVE? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you teach that any sexual relations are permitted other than those which are specifically permitted in the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE? A. No, sir.

In answer to the Court, the witness stated that the distinguishing feature of the New Jerusalem Church as compared with other Churches was that the Lord Jesus Christ is the one God of Heaven and earth; and led on by Mr. Weill, he gave some explanation of this doctrine, showing also that the first coming of the Lord was in Christ, and the second through the Writings of Swedenborg; and that Swedenborg had been in communication with spirits, and revealed the doctrine on which the New Church had been founded.

Mr. Coyle then took the witness for re-cross-examination, and, referring to the testimony that there was no governing body for the whole New Church, endeavored to get him to admit that there was one central governing body of the New Church in the United States. The witness denied this, and Mr. Coyle continued:

Q. Was there up to 1891? A, No, sir, not always.

Q. For centuries the General Convention was the general governing body of the Church? A. For part of a century.

The witness then fixed the date when the Convention was the general governing body as 1858-1891.

Further questions brought out that there had been a Western and a Middle [Central] Convention, as well as the General Convention.

Conjugial Love a Theological or a Moral Work?

The examination then turned again to the question of CONJUGIAL LOVE, the witness being asked whether the Academy taught it as one of your theological works.

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Has not Swedenborg taught, and has he not so declared that the book from which teach these things on conjugial love was not a theological work that it was not inspired, never was claimed by him, and that it was simply a moral book? A. I would answer that, No.

Q. By your answer No, do you mean that you are not aware of any writings of Swedenborg in which he made that declaration with regard to this book? A. Yes, sir, I am not aware that he made that declaration that you ask me.

Q. Are you aware of the fact of his having made any similar declaration to that? A. I am aware of the fact that there is a letter to Dr. Beyer, I believe it is, in which he speaks of the book as not being theological, but moral, but he does not say that it is not inspired.

Q. Not theological, but moral. That he did not intend it to be a theological work, but only a moral work. A. I would not admit that.

Q. Tell me what it was you said? A. You are trying to draw me into a statement I do not want to make.

Q. Tell me what it was Swedenborg wrote to the Bishop? A. I say just what it says, that it does not treat of theology, but chiefly of morals.

Q. And yet you teach it as a theological work? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have said that you teach this work as a theological work, and teach from it as such; do you know that the Church of the New Jerusalem under the General Convention does not teach it as a theological work, and did not, and does not teach from it now?

The question was objected to by Mr. Hensel, but allowed by the Court as showing that there may be different interpretations of the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

A. No, sir; I did not know that the General Convention repudiated the work.

Mr. Coyle then asked whether the General Convention treated CONJUGIAL LOVE as a theological work, or whether they treated it as not a theological work. The witness answered that, judging from the fact that they published it, they treated it as a theological work.

Mr. Coyle then questioned the witness as to the Council of the Clergy of the General Church, and endeavored to get him to say that this Council has supervision over the doctrines taught, but in this he failed, the witness stating that the only requisite for entrance into the General Church was baptism, and that the duties of the Council concerned the ecclesiastical policy of the Church. With regard to doctrine, the whole position of the Academy was that the Writings are self-interpretative, and that any man is free to make his own interpretation.

Q. Whatever interpretation he would put on the work of CONJUGIAL LOVE? A. He would have to make that interpretation himself. We could not interpret for him.

Q. He might interpret it one way and I might another? A. Yes. Sir.

Q. He might draw from it the permission as to sexual intercourse, and I might draw the opposite? A. If you accept that as the court of final appeal, [i. e.,] the doctrines themselves.

Q. Who establishes the doctrine--of what it actually is? A. The doctrines themselves do.

This line of questioning was continued by the Court, who asked whether he would be permitted to interpret the doctrine of Swedenborg as finding that there were two persons in the Godhead, and being answered in the affirmative, continued, Would I be thrown out of the Church? to which the witness answered, You would take yourself out.

Further inquiries drew from the witness that even as to essentials, every man must be free to make his own interpretation of the Writings.

The witness was then dismissed, and the Academy rested its case.

Mr. Coyles Misleading Offer.

Mr. Coyle addressed the Court, stating his purpose to call the head of the church in this country in order to prove by him, the Rev. Samuel S. Seward, President of the General Convention of the New Jerusalem Church of the United States of America, that it is a part of the teachings of the Church of the New Jerusalem that this book of CONJUGIAL LOVE is not a theological book, and was so declared by Swedenborg, and that they do not teach it, and it is not the teaching of the New Jerusalem as permitting the carnal intercourse of the sexes outside of the marriage state under any circumstances; that a proper interpretation, and the universal interpretation of this work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, is not in line with that immorality; and further that this is what the general body of the Church which is still the general body of the Church teaches; and that this organization declared itself to be an independent organization of the Church of the New Jerusalem, and seceded from the General Convention on that very doctrine;* that they have interpreted this book and wished to have the General Convention teach that doctrine and they refused to do it, and they seceded from the Church formed an independent organization.*

* See p. 285, note.

* This astounding assertion, several times repeated (see pp. 122, 165, 166, 179, 190, 409), and emphasized in the final Brief of the Trustees (p. 401), is so palpably false that it needs no refutation. The General Church succeeded from the General Convention because that body refused to allow it the freedom of action, guaranteed by the Conventions own constitution. (See p. 25.)

MR. KELLER They are not teaching the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, and in the second place they are not in affiliation with any Church of the New Jerusalem, as it taught and was known and has been from the time of Mr. Kramphs death.

MR. HENSEL That witness would not be relevant nor throw any light. As your Honor has observed from the beginning it is not a question here as to the discipline of this Church, or the relations of this university to this Church; but whether or not they teach the doctrines as laid down in the Writings of Swedenborg. Now I do not care ... whether they are theological or moral. It may be he did not consider this sanitary question, which it is largely, of the sexual relations, a theological doctrine He says it is not a book of theology but morals. If it is the doctrine laid down by Emanuel Swedenborg, it is adhered to as the Christian might teach the principles of the Old Testament as changed in the New Testament, which would not be in accordance with modern statute law; but that has nothing to do with the question where the money is to go.

MR. COYLE. They come here and say that they teach the doctrines of the New Church. Any testimony would be relevant to show they did not.... We propose to submit proof to the opposite. Your Honor can see the importance of this one doctrine of the Church; the permissibility of what the civil law declares a crime; the permissibility of what the law says is immoral.

There they have admitted as true that they do not teach this immorality as the law would describe it. We want to go further and show, not that the branch of the Church, but rather the Church that existed at the time of Mr. Kramphs death, was the only Church of the Swedenborgian faith in this country, but it did not teach this immorality at that time, and does not do so now.... The best way to do it is by the man best equipped to give your Honor the information as to what the General Convention does teach on that subject.

THE COURT. That would simply prove that the Writings were interpreted differently by different people. I will assume the question, as framed, to have been answered by the witness, if he was here,... in the negative,--that they do not teach that in the General Convention.

MR. COYLE. I would prove by him that the General Convention was the Church at that time and is today; and that this body is simply a body of seceders from it. If your Honor is going to pass by authority; if, following the claims of the gentlemen of the other side, the Court is not giving due weight to the governing bodies in the churches; if you are going to consider this as a free-for-all fight by anybody that may rise up and say, I teach the doctrine of Swedenborg,--we are going to get into serious trouble.... Here is the General Convention of the New Jerusalem, established as a central body, and the Church to which Frederick Kramph belonged,* teaching these doctrines. A body comes along, not teaching these doctrines, and asks for the money. If it is admitted that this General Convention was the Swedenborgian Church of the United States at that time, that the others seceded in 1891, and that they teach this doctrine and we do not, of course they have admitted all we should prove.

* See pp. 87, seq.

Mr. Hensel stated that for the purpose of this hearing it might be assumed that the witness would so testify.

Mr. Coyle then presented his entire offer, as follows:

I propose to prove by Mr. Seward, that the General Convention ... was ... and is today the governing body of that [the Swedenborgian] Church; that that Church teaches the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, amongst which is the immorality of sexual connection outside of the marriage state, a part of its teachings being that the permissibility of sexual connection outside of the marriage state is immoral is not based upon the doctrines or writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, because the work upon which the teachings of the claimant is based was not a theological work, but purely a moral work written at the time of certain conditions and to meet certain conditions which shortly thereafter did not exist. That because the General Convention did not teach this doctrine and refused to teach this doctrine, the General Church, being the claimant--the Church of the claimantseceded from the General Convention in 1891; that it is an independent body entirely, and does trot teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem.

Objected to by Mr. Hensel, the General Convention not being a claimant here.

THE COURT. It would be evidence as to whether the claimant taught the doctrines laid down in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. It simply shows different interpretations to be taught from the Writings of Swedenborg.

Mr. Coyle then continued:

We offer to prove that the teaching of the Church of the New Jerusalem is that the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE on this question of permissibility, which is put under the head of Insanity,--has long since ceased to be an authority, because the conditions under which it was written long since ceased, and the General Convention has never yielded to them.

Mr. Hensel objected on the ground that this would not show what is the doctrine of Swedenborg. Even if the witness should so testify, it would not be relevant, and, moreover, we would have the right to cross-examine. The claim set up by the Seward, McGeorge party is that they are the simon-pure Swedenborgians. That had no bearing on the case. Among the branches of the Church, the Academy alone was before the Court.

We say we are teaching the doctrines of the New Jerusalem Church as laid down in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. They do not say we are not teaching the doctrines of Swedenborg; they say we are putting a false interpretation upon them because they put another interpretation on them.

THE COURT. The claimants have proved everything the claim requires; that the Lord Jesus Christ was the only God; that seemed to be the fact in the mind of the testator. You are going to show that they do not teach those doctrines, which would be very material, but if awarded to your trustees

MR. COYLE. We prove that the doctrines of the New Church, that the teachings of Swedenborg are immoral, and therefore they do not teach it, and that the present claimant who says that they teach the doctrines, and admits that they teach things, which are there taught as immoral. They do not therefore teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem. The Church of the New Jerusalem taught that this work was a work on morals and not on theology.

THE COURT. What assurance would we have if the money were awarded to the succeeding Trustees, that an institution would not be established which would not teach the same doctrines taught by these claimants?

Mr. Coyle answered that the Trustees would be subject to the Court.

The case was then adjourned to Thursday, July 2, but on that date, by agreement of counsel, it was continued to July 8, 1908.

Mr. Worcester Testifies.

The REV. W. L. WORCESTER was the first witness called on the morning of July 8th. Examined by Mr. Coyle, he testified as to the various offices held by him, including the Presidency of the Theological School of the General Convention; also that the latter body had been in continuous existence since about 1817; that during its existence there were for a short period Central and Western Conventions, as independent and coordinate bodies, but that from 1852 until 1891 the General Convention was the only general body of the Church in the United States.

Mr. Coyle then turned to the question of doctrine.

Q. Is there a doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem on the question of conjugial love, or the relations of the sexes? A. There is; yes, sir.

Q. Does or does not that doctrine hold and teach as wrong and sinful all practice of impurity or relations between the sexes outside of the marriage state?

This was objected to by Mr. Hensel on the ground that if there is a doctrine reduced to any definite shape, the witness should not be allowed to put his interpretation on it, but should produce the thing itself.

Mr. Coyle stated that he was going to follow the question by the production of the document. The Court, however, agreed with Mr. Hensel, and the question was disallowed.

Mr. Coyle then asked whether the General Convention had ever made any declaration on the subject of the right or wrong, the sinfulness, or unsinfulness of the relation of the sexes outside of the marriage state.

The witness answered that such a declaration had been made formally in 1879, and again in 1903. Being asked what the declaration and doctrine on the subject was, he answered that it was a short RESOLUTION, and a longer explanation. He accompanied the answer by reading the RESOLUTION, as given on page 75.

Mr. Coyle then offered the RESOLUTION AND REPORT of 1903 (see page 69) as the witnesss answer, just as Mr. Doering had given the Declaration as his answer.

Q. Previous to 1879, was it or not a doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem that any relation of the sexes outside of the marriage state was right or wrong--was there any pronouncement on the subject?

A. I dont know that there was any formal pronouncement.

Mr. Coyle explained that he wished to know from the writers information or education or examination of authorities that the doctrine of the Church was that all practice of impurity was sinful.

Mr. Hensel objected because the only question is the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and what is in those Writings is there to stay.

The question was allowed as throwing some light on the subject.

Q. Was it a doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem previous to 1879 that all practice of impurity, including fornication and concubinage, was a transgression of the commandment and regarded as sinful in the sight of God? A. I think that was always the understanding and the teaching upon the subject.

In a brief cross-examination; Mr. Hensel led the witness to testify that the committee which drew up the RESOLUTION AND REPORT just offered in evidence, and the Council of Ministers which adopted it had no right to define the law of the New Church on any subject.

The cross-examination was then continued by Mr. Weill, who first addressed himself to the testimony of the witness that from 1852 to 1591 the General Convention was the only general body of the New Church.

To the question whether, during those years, there was any general body, the witness answered, I dont know of any, except there was one--the little Western Convention--but its dates I cannot give you.

Mr. Weill followed with questions concerning the Pennsylvania Association, the Lancaster Society, and the General Church of Pennsylvania, and he drew from the witness the statement that he was not definitely acquainted with the history of these bodies.

Q. Then you are not certain in your statement that between 1840 and 1891 there was no general New Jerusalem Church body outside of the General Convention? A. I am correct in that statement. If there was a Pennsylvania Association, with dates which you give, it was not what I call a general body of the New Church.

The witness thee repeated his belief that from 1840 to 1891 the General Convention was the oily general body of the Church; but Mr. Weill led him to testify that during those years there were probably many New Churchmen in the United States, and no doubt some societies in no way identified with the General Convention.

To other questions the witness testified that the REPORT of 1905 related chiefly to the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE.

The Authority of Councils Denied.

Q. Was the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE taught as one of the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg when you were a student there? A. It was.

Q. By whom was CONJUGIAL LOVE taught when you were in the theological school? A. I never had any instruction myself on it except from my father.

Q. Was that given as a course? A. It came as part of the school instruction.

Q. I read from the second paragraph of the REPORT just offered in evidence: The committee disclaim for itself or for the Council the right to define the law of the New Church on any Subject, for it has no such authority. The Committee or the Council, while, as in the present case, it may speak with the earnestness of firm conviction, still call only give its understanding of the truth revealed by the Lord in His Word, and through His servant, Emanuel Swedenborg. Read in THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, No. 489, the charge to put faith in no council, but in the Lords Word which is above councils. After that statement Council proceeded to make its REPORT and the RESOLUTION was adopted. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Your thought is now that Council was in error in suggesting that no faith he put in councils, but that faith should be put in councils, and the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg should be repudiated. Does that represent your position? A. Not at all.

MR. HENSEL. In other words, all the interpretations and authorities go back to Swedenborg; ... they all rely on, and regard the Swedenborgian Writings as the common source of authority. There is the supreme authority. Thus, as different denominations interpret the Bible differently, so they all accept Swedenborgs teachings, but differ in interpretations? A. Yes.

Q. They consult Swedenborgs Writings as the Divine interpretation? A. No, sir; I didnt assent in that sense.

In answer to a question by the Court, the witness here explained, I merely assented to this that so far as I know all who claim to be New Churchmen and make an interpretation on this subject, base their interpretation on Swedenborg.

MR. HENSEL. That is what I mean. A. In that sense I assented. I didnt mean any such comparison with the Bible at all.

Q. I didnt intend to bind you at all. What I meant to say is this: That, all of the various schools and societies and individuals who profess to belong to the New Church, or the Church of the New Jerusalem, go back to Swedenborgs works, and if there is any dispute as to what the works contain, the controversy arose from different interpretations as to what they meant and what Swedenborg meant? A. Yes, sir.

The witness then testified that Swedenborgs works were written in Latin, and that his last work was THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, which followed closely on CONJUGIAL LOVE, and was a summary of his religious teachings, called The Universal Theology of the New Church.

On re-direct-examination, Mr. Coyle asked about the dates of publication of THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE and CONJUGIAL LOVE, but the witness could not answer. Mr. Coyle then asked:

Q. You say that the different bodies interpret this work on CONJUGIAL LOVE in different ways? The interpretation of the General Convention is that all impurity is sinful, and the interpretation of the General Church, with which the Academy is affiliated, is that it is not sinful under certain circumstances?

This was objected to by Mr. Hensel. The teachings of the General Church (he said) had been formulated in part in the Declaration of the Bishop; that was the best evidence; a mere opinion was not testimony.

Mr. Coyle then led the witness to testify that he had seen the Declaration in question. He then continued:

Q. I refer in my question to the difference is interpretation between the two bodies of the Church--the General Convention, that is the body with which you are affiliated, and the General Church, to which the Academy is affiliated--is that you teach it is sinful, and that they teach that it is proper?

Mr. Hensel repeated his objection. The Court had before it the formulated teachings of the General Convention and the General Church, and could make its own comparison.

The Court thought that the matter concerned the Writings of Swedenborg, for which Mr. Kramph had given his bequest. If the Trustees were entitled to the money, there was nothing else to be clone than to see that the direction to teach the Writings of Swedenborg was complied with. We may not know bow this will be when the fund is distributed. It may be a long time before they accumulate the fund to carry out the purposes of the testator. He was willing to go outside to see the bearing of the question.

Mr. Coyle defended his question on the ground that if he could show that in the teachings of the Academy there is anything against social order, the Court could not give the money to them under the laws of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Hensel called the Courts attention to the language of the will as showing that the contemplated institution

is not in itself to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down; it is to educate ministers who are to teach that doctrine. This institution (he continued) is founded for that purpose. If they have perverted that purpose that is another subject. It cannot be the subject of attack here in this proceeding. If that institution meets the requirements of this will then by the application of the act of 1895 it is entitled to receive the money.

If subject to investigation it must be by the Courts of Philadelphia, because it received its franchise there, and if it has transgressed its charter that cannot be inquired into here; but the only test before the Court is whether the institution was founded for universal New Church education and the education of New Church ministers.

MR. COYLE. While the Court would revoke their charter, if shown that they teach doctrines against the civil law, it concerns the Court having control of the fund to see that it shall not go for that purpose where the claimant has shown that it does teach doctrines that are against the civil law. The language of the will is, that it shall go to a university which teaches the doctrines of the New Jerusalem. I oppose that on the ground that they do not teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, because the doctrine of the New Jerusalem on the question of the sexes is not what they teach, and if that is the doctrine of the New Jerusalem it is such a doctrine as is subversive of social order, is against morality and not entitled to the fund.* Are you going into a discussion of what are the doctrines of the New Jerusalem?

* The reader will note the alternative, If that is the doctrine, etc. (See p. 415).

THE COURT. That all goes back to the doctrines. Suppose we had something by which we may reach such a conclusion, the law would apply.

MR. COYLE. We have it in the testimony given the other day. The permissibility of carnal connection between man and woman outside of the marriage state.

The Court reminded counsel that the first duty, perhaps the only duty, is to try to carry out the intentions or the intents of the testator.

Mr. Coyle admitted that the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE was published and known before the time of the will, but (he added) There is no teaching from it such as they teach now. That is what I want to prove.

The Court then allowed the examination to proceed.

Q. Previous to 1879, was there or not any teachings, or any teaching of the doctrine of the New Church construing it as being permissible or allowable, in the sense of being unsinful, to have intercourse between man and woman outside of the marriage state? A. I know of no such teaching. There certainly could not have been any general teaching of that bind, or I would have known of it.

The witness then testified that the General Convention is now, and always was, made up of the vast majority of the body of the Church.

In reference to his previous testimony that the resolution of the Council of Ministers had no binding authority upon the Church, the witness was asked whether the resolution [Declaration] of the Joint Councils of the General Church had any binding authority upon the members of the Church, he replied: We were told that it has not. The witness who presented that evidence so stated.

The witness was then turned over to Mr. Hensel, who in a brief cross-examination led him to testify that he was not familiar with Whites first biography of Swedenborg, and that he did not know whether or not, since its publication, and thus long prior to 1855, the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE had been assailed by many writers outside of the New Church, or whether Swedenborg had been represented as defending immoral practices.

This led Mr. Coyle to ask whether; if that was the case, there was any

teaching inside of the Church that his book on CONJUGIAL LOVE made it right, and not an evil, for the connection of the sexes outside of the marriage state?

A. I know of no such teachings, and there certainly was no such general teaching.

Mr. Hensel then asked whether there was not a dissension in the Church itself over the interpretation of this work as early as 1789, and whether this was not a matter of Church history.

The witness answered: I am not aware of it.* The witness did not know that in 1789 in the New Church of Great Britain there was an angry and spirited controversy over the interpretation of CONJUGIAL LOVE, nor was he familiar with the life of Robert Hindmarsh, nor with the works of August Nordenskjold.

* This answer is from Mr. Aldens report, and is supported by the recollection of several persons present at the trial. The official report, however, omits the not.

Q. Was there not in 1891 a split from the General Convention because of the difference in the interpretation on this point, and was or was not that the basis of the secession of the General Church, to which the Academy is affiliated, from the General Convention?

The question was disallowed as irrelevant.

Mr. Sewards Scandalous Charge.

The next witness was the REV. SAMUEL S. SEWARD. After testifying as to his offices, including that of President of the General Convention for the past eight years, he stated that he knew of: no formal pronouncement by the General Convention, or by any body of the Church previous to 1879 on this subject of CONJUGIAL LOVE. He further testified that he had attended meetings of the Convention for the past thirty-nine years, and was familiar with the literature of the Church.

Q. State whether or not previous to 1879 there was any teaching in the General Convention in this country that intercourse between the sexes outside of the marriage state was not sinful? A There was no such teaching, no official teaching and privately it was repudiated by the General Convention, or the people of the General Convention.

Mr. Coyle then asked whether there was any considerable discussion or difference of opinion in the General Convention or in the Swedenborgian Church in this country previous to 1879 as to the teaching or interpretation of CONJUGIAL LOVE. The witness answered that it appeared in the previous year, 1878, when, he believed, it first took concrete form.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hensel, the witness testified that he was the author of a pamphlet entitled, THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD WITH RELATION TO PURITY OF LIFE.

Q. Is that the statement of your views on this question? A. It was at the time it was written; there have been some modifications.

Q. Have you modified your views since that pamphlet was written and published?

MR. COYLE. I do not think his personal opinion would be relevant.

THE COURT. I think that is the whole question--what each ones personal views would be. Each one may put his own interpretation on the Writings of Swedenborg.

MR. COYLE. How would your Honor determine the question? We might bring in five thousand who would testify that these things are sinful, and the other side bring in forty-five hundred to testify they were not sinful.

THE COURT. It is not the question of doctrine.

MR. COYLE. I think it is not. I think we are entitled to the money. Why is it not pertinent to ascertain whether they are teaching the doctrines of the New Jerusalem? We must ascertain what the doctrines are, and that does not depend on the personal view.

MR. HENSEL. I am asking him now, he having qualified as a theological expert--I use the term with the greatest respect--I am asking him whether or not since he wrote and published this book, called THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD IN RELATION TO THE PURITY OF LIFE, your views on that subject have been modified?

MR. COYLE Objected to, because question relates to personal views of the witness.

Allowed. Exception taken.

A. My views with regard to the doctrine have not been modified, but some statements made in the pamphlet have been.

Q. Whether you made any statement of facts, not of opinion, in this paper which you have found to be incorrect?

MR. COYLE. Objected to as irrelevant.

MR. HENSEL. He said some things he has modified.

THE COURT. He said opinion.

MR. HENSEL. I do not ask about opinion. What I am asking is, whether or not, in this book, or pamphlet, you made any statement of fact, historical fact, which you have subsequently ascertained to be incorrect, and would now correct?

Objected to. Allowed. Exception taken.

A. I made some statements as to what I understood to be the attitude of the Academy which I have been obliged to revise.*
*The matter printed in italics was subsequently stricken out by order of the Court (see p. 196).

Q. Will you tell me what statement of fact in this pamphlet of yours you have been compelled to revise?

Objected to. Allowed Exception taken.

A. I supposed at the time that the members of the Academy did not practice the views which they taught, but I have been since forced to the opinion that they do.*

* The matter printed in italics was subsequently stricken out by order of the Court (see p. 196).

Q. In that book, THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD, under CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 276, concubinage is spoken of as being permitted. Is that true? A. I dont remember the number now. If I said so, it is true. I shall want to have the whole passage.

Q. I call your attention to the eighth and ninth lines on page 13, in which occurs this expression, In CONJUGIAL LOVE, NO. 2'76, concubinage is spoken of as being permitted. Is that statement true? Is it so spoken of? A. Yes, sir; I think it is.

The witness then testified that he had never published any retraction, modification or enlargement of his work on the SAVING POWER OF THE LORD. In answer to other questions he testified that the Report of the Council of Ministers of 1879 was, so far as he knew, unanimously adopted by the Council.

MR. COYLE. Q. Mr. Hensel asked you whether you published any retraction of anything in this book, and you say you have not? A. No, sir.

Q. There was nothing to retract in it? A. Nothing at all.

Q. You have published an enlargement of it this morning? A. Possibly.

Q. In the book you said that they only believed these things

MR. HENSEL. I object to this witness stating anything on hearsay or information.

THE COURT. You went into the subject in a way.

MR. HENSEL. We tried to put the witness in the position of saying he had published these things. It was not evidence.

MR. HENSEL. Q. You stated? A. I made some statement with regard to the attitude of the Academy which I have since been obliged to revise. I supposed at the time that the members of the Academy did not practice the views which they taught, but have since been forced to believe that they do.

Q. Do you know that from personal knowledge or from information? A. From information.

MR. HENSEL. I ask the Court to strike it out.

THE COURT. That is right.

MR. COYLE. I oppose the motion to strike out this testimony. Counsel insisted on the witness stating whether there were any changes, first, in his opinion, and he said there were not; secondly, anything in statement of fact, and he said there were; and then he asked him to point them out. It was perfectly relevant and brought out by him. It was his answer to the question of Mr. Hensel.

MR. HENSEL. I object to that answer because he stated it on information

THE COURT. But would not information be useful for changing his opinion?

MR. HENSEL. I did not ask about his opinion. I asked about statement of fact, and his answer is irrelevant, improper, and scandalous.

The matter was taken under advisement by the Court; later on, at the opening of the afternoon session, the Court ruled that the answer must be stricken out as not responsive to the question.

MR. COYLE. When Mr. Hensel read to you out of this book, which, he said, you published, the words, being permitted [see page 194], the Court would likely get the impression that you wrote them. I ask you ... whether those words were not in quotations, and quoted from the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE. A. They are.

Mr. Hensel offered is evidence Mr. Sewards SAVING POWER OF THE LORD.

Conjugial Love a Theological Work.

The cross-examination was then taken up by Mr. Weill.

Q. Has the Board of Managers of your Theological School of the General Convention repudiated this work on CONJUGIAL LOVE? I understand that Mr. Seward testified before that the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE; had practically been repudiated.

Has the Board of Managers of the Theological School of the General Convention ever considered whether or not the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE should be taught in the Theological School? A. I dont know.

Q. Has the work ever been taught in the General Convention Theological School? A. I think it has, not from my personal knowledge.

Q. Did you ever attend the Theological School? A. I did.

Q. During your attendance was the subject taught? A. No, it was not.

Q. Prior to 1907 you were President of the American Swedenborg Printing and Publishing Society? A. Yes, sir.

Q. That Society has continually been advertising CONJUGIAL LOVE as one of the theological works? A. It does.

Objected to by Mr. Coyle as irrelevant.

A. It does continue advertising and publishing it--getting out a new edition now.

Mr. McGeorges Testimony.

MR. WM. MCGEORGE, JR., was then called by Mr. Coyle. He commenced to testify at great length as to the various offices he held in the General Convention, and the duties of these offices; also that he had been attending the General Convention for about forty years; that the Convention was organized in Philadelphia in 1817, and is composed of State Associations, and of individual societies: We admitted that, for a time, the Central and Western Conventions were independent organizations. The Western was so trifling that I have found only brief mention of it, but the Central went out of business in 1852.

He further testified that from 1852 to 1891, while there were State Associations and things of that kind, there was no general body of the Church, except the Convention.

Asked, Were the Associations part of Convention? he said, They were, ... with the exception of a period in the history of Pennsylvania.

After the organization of the Academy and the gradual growth of it, those doctrines that they taught made a separation between the members of the Academy, and those who didnt hold to those views, and consequently the large body of the members.

Here Mr. Hensel objected, The witness is wandering a little; and he added, We must put the brakes on.

The Court consented to hear the rest of the answer.

The witness then explained that for a time the Pennsylvania Association did not represent the members of the Church that belonged to the Convention, and that for a brief period it did not include all the churches and societies and members in Pennsylvania. To further questions, he went on to speak of the General Church of the advent, the General Church of Pennsylvania, etc., but Mr. Hensel objected to the whole testimony as irrelevant.

The objection was sustained by the Court, who remarked, I think it is irrelevant since I have heard it.

In answer to questions by the Court, Mr. Hensel and Mr. Coyle both agreed that the Lancaster Society became a member of the General Convention in 1865, thus after Mr. Kramph had written his will. Mr. Coyle, however, added that he would show that Mr. Kramph had been a delegate to the General Convention previous to that time.*

* Mr. Kramph was only a visitor (see p. 88).

Mr. Coyle led the witness to testify that he was familiar with the action of the Council of Ministers in passing the resolutions of 1903 and 1879.

Q. Do you know whether or not previous to 1879 there was any formal pronouncement on the subject of the relation of the sexes? A. There was never a formal pronouncement on the subject prior to 1879 that I can find in any of the records, or that I have any knowledge of. But the subject was brought up in the Convention of 1878.

MR. HENSEL I am objecting to your answering anything except what you are asked.

Q. Previous to 1879, was there to your personal knowledge or anything that you have been able to find, come in contact with, any teaching by the General Convention, of the sinlessness of intercourse between men and women outside of the marriage state? A. Never.

Q. Was it or not previous to 1879, the doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem that intercourse of men and women outside of the marriage state was sinless.

Objected to by Mr. Hensel, as irrelevant and incompetent.

MR. COYLE. If that was the teaching of the Church during Mr. Kramphs life, it was what was in contemplation.

THE COURT. Admitted. We cannot object to the giving of the views which influenced Mr. Kramph in writing the will. But we have the testimony showing that this book, CONJUGIAL LOVE, was unquestionably a writing of Swedenborg, and was taught in the school and counted among the theological works previous to that; and therefore this testimony would go for what it is worth in considering its influence upon the testator.

MR. COYLE. But there were two teachings from that book, and I want to show that in Mr. Kramphs time there was only one teaching.

THE COURT. I think you are going too far.

Question repeated.

A. Never was the doctrine since I have been connected with it, and that is sixty-seven years.

The witness then testified that L. C. Iungerich, Henry A. Carpenter, Simon S. Rathvon, Alexander Officer, N. C. Burnham, and Rudolph L. Tafel, six of the original Trustees, were all members of the General Convention.

This led the Court to remark:

Each may have been a member of the General Convention and each may have differed in their views of the writings of Swedenborg A mall may be a member of the Republican or the Democratic party, and yet may not hold the views of the party.

Mr. Coyle then commenced with L. C. Iungerich to bring out his relation to the General Convention, when the Court remarked:

I dont think it is necessary to go into that. The only way in which it may possibly be relevant is to show the condition of the church; the church at the time he wrote his will and the influence that may have had upon him when he wrote it. It could easily be argued that he had very different views from the churchs views, and that it was for the purpose of establishing a purely different school,--a school teaching as the Academy teaches. He may not or he may have been in sympathy with the Convention. Individuals differ in their teachings of Swedenborg, and each has a right to interpret....

We must take what the testator said chiefly. If there is any difference which is more than a conjecture as to the influences under which he was writing his will, that might and ought possibly to be taken into consideration. We start with the will as with any other will, to see what his intentions were from what he says.

Mr. Coyle then offered to prove that of the twelve men who organized the Academy in 1876, Benade was deposed, five others ... withdrew, and were not in harmony with the claimant and not in accordance with its teachings, and one of the other clergymen was practically silenced, and I dont know what happened to the remainder of the twelve.

The Court assured itself from Mr. Hensel that the institution incorporated in 1877 in Philadelphia,--in other words, in the language of the will, the Consolidated City of Philadelphia, was the same as the Academy now claiming.

Mr. Coyles offer was then disallowed as irrelevant.

Mr. Coyle then examined the witness as to the split of the General Church from the General Convention.

Q. State whether or not that withdrawal is said to be on account of doctrinal differences,--for certain divergencies of the understanding of a certain doctrine.

A. That is what they said in their letter of withdrawal, page 137 of the Journal of 1891.*

* Cf. p. 25.

The witness then testified that the Journal shows that in 1891, W. H. Benade, and the other ministers connected with the Academy, resigned from the General Convention; but the Court stopped this line of testimony, as getting away from the intentions of the testator.

Mr. Hensel commenced his cross-examination by showing from the witness that William H. Benade, who signed that declaration of independence [on page 137 of the Journal] was the same Benade that is named as one of the Trustees in the will, and was the last survivor of them.

Various questions were asked as to the Central Convention, the Lancaster Society, and the Philadelphia Society founded by Benade, Iungerich, Tafel, and DeCharms, with the object of showing that all these bodies were at one time or another independent of the General Convention.

The upshot of his testimony was that the Central Convention (1840-1852) was not part of the General Convention; that; the little Society called the Philadelphia Society was not the Philadelphia Society in any other sense than that it was so designated, for there were five other societies in Philadelphia; that the Lancaster Society was a member of the Central Convention, and was independent of the Pennsylvania Association, and the General Convention from 1852 to 1865, though the witness added Kramph himself was present in the convention of 57; I know that; that the little Church called the Philadelphia Society was a member of the General Convention from its inception to its death;

that Mr. Benade resigned from the First Philadelphia Society at the time he formed that little Society, the Philadelphia Society, and that while the First Philadelphia Society did not belong to the General Convention, Mr. Benade did.

The witness also testified that of the original Trustees, Dr. R. L. Tafel was never a member of the Central Convention. As to the membership of the other Trustees he did not know, except that N. Francis Cabell was reported as an elected member of Convention in 56, 57 and 58; Mr. Officer as a leader from 1836 to 1846, and Mr. Burnham as a minister during the time of the Central Convention.

On re-direct-examination Mr. Coyle led the witness to testify that of the original Trustees, Mr. Iungerich was a delegate to the General Convention in 58 to 63; Mr. Rathvon in 70, but Mr. Officer is reported in the records of the Convention from 36 to 46, as leader of the Lancaster Society; Mr. Henry Carpenter as leader from Strasburg and Paradise from 34 to 58, and Mr. Benade as minister from 47 to 64.

On re-cross-examination , Mr. Hensel asked whether it was not a fact that, from 1840 to 1889, the First Philadelphia Society, to which Mr. McGeorge belonged, was not a member of the General Convention. The witness assented, though he was not quite sure as to the dates. He also testified that from 1840 to 1889 the Baltimore Society was outside of the General Convention.

Mr. Hensel explained that the purpose of the questions was to show that a member of the New Jerusalem Church might; not be a member of the General Convention.

Mr. Coyle stated that he wished to show that Mr. Kramph, according to the Journal of the Convention, was reported leader of the Lancaster Society, 54, 55, 56 and 57, and at this last Convention he was invited to take part in the proceedings,--that is, the year before he died. He died in 58.

Mr. Worcester Recalled.

Mr. Worcester was then recalled in order to show whether there was any difference between the two bodies of the Church as to requisites for membership in the New Church. In answer to the Court, the witness stated:

A. The practice is not absolutely uniform in different societies of the Convention, but it is practically what has been stated,--an acceptance of the doctrines as expounded by Swedenborg, and usually baptism.*

* Later in the case the Trustees directly contradicted this statement. See p. 242 (13). See also p. 437, where Mr. Worcester testifies that acceptance of all the doctrines of Swedenborg is not necessary to membership in the New Church.

THE COURT. That is all I want to know.

MR. COYLE. You say the acceptance of the doctrines of Swedenborg; and is each member permitted to put his own interpretation upon those writings, or is there a source from which

THE COURT. Let him answer the question, whether each man is permitted to interpret the doctrine primarily of Emanuel Swedenborg? A. I would say, Yes.

Q. In that respect there is no difference, as I understand?

MR. COYLE. Q. Then any pronouncement or declaration or findings of the doctrine as to the teachings from any particular work by the Council of Ministers, or any other body of the Church, is not binding upon any member? A. No, sir.

MR. HENSEL. Q. Does the General Convention insist upon baptism as a requisite of admission to the New Church? A. No, sir, it does not. I said it was usual.

Q. I suppose you mean by that, to say that it was not essential? A. No, sir, it was not.

Q. A person can be admitted into membership of the New Church by simply professing or proclaiming their acceptance of doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg as laid down in the Writings?

A. There is no law of the Convention to prevent it.

Q. And no body or Council has the right to define the law of the New Church? A. May I explain in a few words? No Council can lay down authoritatively the doctrine. There are certain rules of Church Order which are recognized as Convention rules.

Q. When I said baptism, do I understand that you dont make a requisite of having been baptized in any Church, or that those who are baptized must be baptized in the Swedenborgian Church--that those who are baptized in any other Church are admitted without baptism? A. I think there is no written law of the Convention which would require an unbaptized person to be baptized, but the custom, I think, is universal.

MR. COYLE. Q. Do the rules of order of Convention that you speak of, cover any matters of belief at all?

A. No, I mean rules of Church order, such as those relating to ministers and such things.

Q. ... There are certain rules which must be complied with that pertain to ordination, but outside of that there is no binding force upon anybody? A. No, sir.*

* See pp. 438, 440, where this witness testifies in the Engard case that the consensus of opinion has a binding force.

This concluded the mornings session.

Documentary Evidence.

At the opening of the afternoon session, Mr. Coyle offered in evidence certain portions of the Minutes of the Lancaster Society; DOCTRINE OF LIFE, Nos. 74 to 79; TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, No. 313, and the RESOLUTION AND REPORT of the Council of Ministers of the General Convention of 1903. The latter document was offered only for the information of the Court as to the general acceptance of the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE by the Convention.

Mr. Coyle rested his case.

Mr. Hensel offered in evidence a chronological sketch of the life of Mr. F. J. Kramph and Iris relations to the Lancaster Society, the Central Convention, the General Convention, and other church bodies, prepared by Mr. Doering; also extracts from the minute books of the Lancaster Society from 1836 to 1891, showing the relations of the Society to the General and Central Conventions, and to Mr. Benade.*

* The portions of the Lancaster Societys minutes, also offered by Mr. Coyle, were the minutes of the meetings of October 15, 1890, and July 22, 1891, indicating a lack of mutual affiliation between the Society and the General Church of Pennsylvania. See pp. 94, 95.

Mr. McGeorge was then recalled, and testified that the Philadelphia Society, organized by Mr. Benade, to whom Mr. Kramph wrote this letter of 56 [pp. 88, 89], and by whom a school was started in Philadelphia, was at the time a member of the General Convention.

Mr. Hensel offered in evidence: A compilation drawn up by the Rev. C. Th. Odhner from various publications, showing the connection of Mr. Kramph with the New Church, and his activity for New Church education; a correspondence in 1884 between W. H. Benade, Chancellor of the Academy of the New Church, and the Rev. Frank Sewall, President of Urbana University, showing that the original portrait of Swedenborg left in trust by the Central Convention, was placed at the disposal of the Academy, as the body entitled thereto; letters from Mr. Benade to the Rev. J. P. Stuart, from 1851 to 1854, showing Mr. Benades activity in the cause of New Church education, and his opposition to the General Convention.

A circular dated December, 1855, two years before Mr. Kramphs death, and signed by Messrs. W. H. Benade and N. C. Burnham, calling for the formation of a new general body of the Church, which should have New Church education as one of its uses; letters from Mr. Kramph to Mr. Benade, namely, April 29, 1856, supporting the circular, and stating the need for New Church Schools; October 13, 1856, referring to Mr. Benades society as the only one in this country, perhaps in the world, which has a constitution founded on true order, recognizing Mr. Benades fitness for the work of New Church education, and suggesting the possibility of joining with the Convention; a letter from Mr. Kramphs intimate friend, Mr. S. S. Rathvon, dated May 1, 1856, answering and endorsing the circular; Mr. Benades address at the laying of the corner stone of the Cherry Street School in 1856; a correspondence between W. H. Benade, Pastor of the Philadelphia Society, and the Rev. Thomas Worcester, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Convention, on the possibility of the doctrine and policy of the Convention being such that the Philadelphia Society could unite with it; a letter from the Rev. Frank Sewall to Mr. John Pitcairn, dated June 3, 1903, recognizing the Academy as fulfilling the requirements of the will.*

At the dissolution of the Central Convention in 1852, this portrait was left by that body in trust for a true and universally acknowledged New Church University, founded in the middle states. (New Churchman, Vol. III, p. 75.) After being in the custody of Mr. Daniel Lammot of Wilmington, Delaware, for twenty years or more, the portrait was deposited in Urbana University, pending final disposition. In 1884, the Rev. Samuel M. Warren, the surviving trustee, recognized the Academy of the New Church as having fulfilled the requirements of the trust, and as being therefore the legal recipient of the portrait. He so instructed the authorities of Urbana University, and at their order it was sent to the Academy, in whose possession it now is.

* All these documents, with the exception of the correspondence with Urbana have been used in the compilation of Part III, where they are quoted in whole or in part (see p. 84, seq.).

This latter was offered in rebuttal of the claim that Dr. Sewall as Trustees makes any claim. Like the preceding documents, it was objected to by Mr. Coyle as totally irrelevant. If it were offered (he said) to show that one of the Trustees disclaims, and coincides with the claims of the Academy, we will have to have Mr. Sewall here to disprove that.

The Court refused to admit the letter for the purpose for which it was offered.

John Worcesters Instruction Upon Conjugial Love.

The REV. WILLIAM H. ALDEN was then called to the stand by Mr. Hensel.

He first testified that he had been a minister for twenty-one years, that he was formerly affiliated with the General Convention, but since October, 1906, had affiliated with the General Church. He then testified that he had been a student under Mr. Worcesters father [the Rev. John Worcester], formerly President of the Theological School with which Mr. Wm. L. Worcester is connected.

Q. State whether or not he expounded in that Theological School the doctrine of Emanuel Swedenborg on Conjugial Love? A. He did.

Q. Have you or not your reports and notes of the lectures he delivered on that subject? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is it a correct and truthful report of them? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you or not a stenographer and typewriter? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Aldens stenographic notes were then offered in evidence.

In these notes Mr. Worcester is reported as teaching in connection with the doctrine of separation:

255. Adultery the only cause of separation. CONJUGIAL LOVE, 255, has Adultery the cause of Divorce. The conditions of separation practically reduce both parties to the condition of unmarried people.

I wish that me could keep entirely quiet and see it as Swedenborg sees it. These misunderstandings of him confuse the meaning so that it is impossible to interpret his words as he means them. All he says is just as plain as day, and if your minds are quiet he writes in the light of heaven, and you will see there is nothing but common sense about it. All that has been said so far is so true, the natural and inevitable causes of that kind and degree of separation.

Now as to what is to be done in such cases; that depends upon other things. A quiet-minded, spiritual man, if his wife is insane, and he is of necessity separated from her, will take all possible care of her, and may be as tenderly hopeful, if he has been in a state of interior love for her, he may be as tenderly hopeful of a life with her in the other world as ever.

This comes in as temporary interruption. If he is somewhat in that state of mind interiorly, but exteriorly is as yet a somewhat uncontrolled animal, then the treatment of him as an animal comes in, and as to that, what is said hereafter is to be applied.

Commenting on DIVINE PROVIDENCE, Nos. 183-184, Mr. Worcester says:

Permission of evil is for the sake of leading men out from it.

Regarding 183. The more deeply we go into our own characters, the more we realize the truth of this, that the tendency inside is to a deep hell, and that we are led out of it by the mercy of the Lord all the time.

CONJUGIAL LOVE, 390-286. Now me see the fundamental principle of the Divine Providence in regard to evil. The Lords mercy follows every man; it is just as much over devils as over angels, and is doing the best that can be done with both, with angels to lead them into higher good, with devils to lead them into milder evils, and with men who are in evil to lead them, as he says, first to a milder hell, and then out of hell and finally into heaven. But he says that we start in hell as to our natural characters; and to go back to something that we read two lessons ago, 48a, the love of the sex is the love of many of the sex, whereas conjugial love is for one of the sex....

He [Swedenborg] went to one of the places of instruction in the other world, and there they told him that the universal loves of the hells were the love of ruling from the love of self, and the love of possessing the goods of others, etc., 261-2. And they gave a reason, not the only reason, for this picture of evil at the end of the book to show the opposite of conjugial love, and so to bring out the beauty and purity of conjugial love. It also serves as a means for removing that opposite most thoroughly, and that is the main purpose. No one can look at the book without seeing that the whole tendency is to deliver from evil and to introduce into heaven. And in order that he may deliver from evil those who are very far gone in evil, he goes down quietly and deliberately to the depths and shows them what they may do in the depths, but he does not insist upon his coming out by one bound, but shows them practical steps by which they may come out, but the whole tendency, is to put off the evil and to lead them into the good. There is no other purpose in it, and now, when he uses the word allowable, when he uses in relation to the Lords government in the hells, what is allowable for a devil, for a man when he is in deep evil, in order that he may come out into good, he does not use it in the sense of its being good in itself. What is allowable to an evil spirit is not allowable to an angel. The government of the Lord in the hells is a government of permission, the government in the heavens is a government of providence.

All these things are of the Divine permission, because of the Lords government over the evil for the purpose of leading them out of deeper evils into milder evils....

These things are not said to those who can restrain the heat of lust, nor to those who are able to enter into marriage, immediately on becoming mature; if one is able to restrain himself he is acting from deliberate evil when he comes into any such indulgence, and in regard to that the permissions of evil apply only to those to whom they are restraints, to those to whom they are indulgences they are not permitted. These things which Swedenborg speaks of as allowable are all only to those to whom they are restraints, that is to those from whom they cut off worse things and whom they limit and restrain. Where the people are [already] further restrained than that, to come into those things is an indulgence, and to them it is not allowable; to them it is a profanation. But while we keep that very clearly in mind, I do not wish to lose sight of this Divine mercy, for the world is full of this evil. It is fuller than any Christian man is willing to acknowledge, paradoxical as that remark may seem. We do not open our eyes wide to it; we are all under the spirit of the dragon, which prevents us from looking squarely at evils and those who are in evils; and yet the mercy of the Lord is over all of them and we shall not do our whole duty in helping to save them, until we can be quiet and pure, and apply these principles to them for their salvation. I believe that the application of this part of the book is yet to come in the world, when people are so far freed from the spirit of the Dragon, that they will look at evil from the Lord. Swedenborg does. He does look at evil from the Lord. And I think that all this is said with the light of the Lords presence, and the light of the Lords mercy over those who are in evil.

Swedenborg takes the world as it is, and many things he says here apply to those who are as yet not capable of an intelligent under standing of spiritual things. They are natural, in the natural life. Some men say that there is no need of any indulgence at all. If they will only throw themselves on the Lord they will be entirely freed and will have no more trouble. That is practically nonsense, and in order that they may come to the Lord for His help, they need to have a good deal of instruction, need to have a considerable degree of elevation of mind which cannot be given instantly, and in the meantime, what is to be done?

One other thing I may as well say right here. Some of you know as well as I do, a large part of the trouble that men have in any self-restraint would be prevented, if they knew that the trouble begins in their way of thinking....

I knew a man whose son went off. A fellow of immense animal nature, and not a well developed spiritual or rational mind.

He had been a good and indulged, not well brought up. He went off and went wild after all sorts of women. Now, if I could have got hold of him, I would have limited him to one, if I possibly could, and provided that that one be as suitable as possible. I think that would have been the wise treatment of him by his father, and not simply hasty denunciation, which would prevent him from knowing what was going on.

452. If you find them in a worse evil you cannot avoid pour duty to recommend to them the milder evil.

467-468. He bases this upon the principle that when in marriage a man is actually, practically separated from his wife, he is, as to the natural sexual state in the same condition as an unmarried man, and the same principle applies when he is separated from his wife from legitimate, just, and really sufficient causes, not otherwise. When he is practically, of necessity, separated, then he is in the same condition as the unmarried man and the same principles apply. If the natural lust is uncontrollable, then rather than go into any promiscuous fornication, concubinage is to be preferred. It is an evil, just as fornication is, of course, wholly an evil, of the natural man, not of the spiritual man, and subject to the same restrictions as fornication itself. These things apply, of course, only to those in whom the spiritual nature is not strong enough to restrain the animal. And when they are in it, they are only natural and animal, but yet may be in the desire for a legitimate marriage. You want to distinguish in terms.

470. By this he does not mean that where there is separation from the bed there concubinage is permissible, except so far as it would be permissible if he were not married at all. It simply reduces him to the same condition. That is all he means to say, and not that it would be right for a. spiritual man, but that it is right for one who is so much in evil that it is a restraint to him.

471. Excusatory signifies serious, more properly,--serious in opposition to what are trivial and imaginary.

We know that there does exist such a class of women, and although women are not, in normal states, in states of excitation like men, yet they respond to and follow the states of men. Men and women are born from the same parents, and have the same natural tendencies and characters; and it is not true that women are essentially of a superior kind or stock from man. They are from the same. And of women who enter into the life of prostitutes, very much the greater number of them do it voluntarily, of their own choice. There are some who are deceived and misled by men, but the proportion of such is very small. And very much the greater part are in it of their own choice. For some years the care of brothels of St. Louis was in the hands of the Board of Health, and they kept a careful record.

They examined all inmates and were acquainted with their ways of life, and their histories, and kept a careful record of all who were there. And their investigation showed that of the women there almost all were there of their own choice; a few because they had been misled, a few from poverty and necessity; but a very large majority from choice. And while men and women are as they are, those restraints upon men operate also as restraints upon women. If men are prohibited from promiscuous fornication, it is also a protection to women. And the same principles, although he applies them only to men, are also applicable to women; and if applied to the men will be applied practically to the women.

In cross-examination Mr. Coyle endeavored to discredit these notes. The witness had testified that the notes were approximately Mr. Worcesters whole instruction on CONJUGIAL LOVE.

Q. Do you mean that this is a copy of his entire lecture on CONJUGIAL LOVE? A. I think it is, essentially.

Q. I am not asking whether it is essentially or not. I am asking you whether it is a complete copy of his lectures? A. I would say, No, to that.

Q. It is just such portions as you saw fit to take down at the time? A. No, sir, it was done with the intention that it should be complete. Whatever is omitted is done through some inadvertence.

Q. Is this copy that you have made here a copy not only of the lecture, but of the comments of the students? A. In part it is. It includes some questions by the students, and some remarks made by them.

The witness was then asked whether he put any different construction on these notes, from the construction put upon them at the time they were made, but he had no recollection of what the construction at that time had been.

Mr. Hensel objected to this line of questioning, as not being cross-examination, whereupon the Court remarked that the witness was a stenographer, and therefore had more skill in the taking of notes than the ordinary student. In answer to the Court, the witness stated:

Q. I took it down verbatim. The only question of omission would be where I might not have been listening, and there appear to be some breaks throughout that I cannot account for now. It is a verbatim report. It is not merely my impression. It was taken at the time for a verbatim report.

Mr. Hensel then offered an affidavit by Mr. John Pitcairn to show the continuity of the history of the Academy, and to show that its personnel included men connected with Mr. Kramph, and made Trustees or Guardians in his will.

The officer was withdrawn, however, on a statement by Mr. Coyle that if the document were admitted, he would want to show that these men went out of the Academy.

Mr. Hensel continued his offers by putting in evidence biographies of all the persons named in the will or its codicil as Trustees, Special Guardians, and Executors.*

* The substance of this document is given in Part III, p. 108, seq.

In connection with the provision in the will that in case there should be no university such as contemplated, the devise should pass to the General Conference, the minutes of that body were offered to show the testators ideas about the powers and duties of Trustees.

The Court showed some little amusement when the previous voluminous documents were thus added to, and disallowed the minutes as entirely irrelevant.

Finally Mr. Hensel offered in evidence the JOURNAL OF EDUCATION of the Academy for 1901-1907, showing the nature, equipment, and work of the university.

Mr. Doering Corrects His Testimony.

MR. DOERING was then recalled, and after some testimony, as to the business office of the Academy, he was asked about his former answer (page 175) that in the Academy, the doctrine in question was taught to young men and young women in your Academy. The witness corrected the answer by testifying:

A. I should have said that the young women do not receive any instruction on this subject at all.

In answer to further questions, he testified that the instruction is given to the men by Bishop Pendleton; that he himself had nothing to do with instruction on this subject, and had no personal knowledge other than the Bishops declaration of what is taught on the subject.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Coyle.

Q. Do you know whether or not it is taught to the girls at the Academy? A. I know from inquiry of Bishop Pendleton that he does not teach and has never taught it.

Q. From inquiry from Bishop Pendleton? You have that from hearsay? A. I can take his word for it.

Q. On what did you base your statement the other day that it was taught to the girls as well as the boys? A. I didnt take in the gist of the question. I was rattled; I cant account for it.

Q. It is taught to the boys, is it? A. Bishop Pendleton teaches that subject to the men, not to boys.

Q. You mean the male students? A. I mean the theological students.

Q. Male students? A. They are men. I would like to make that distinction; they are not boys, but they are adults.

Q. The men are taught at the Academy? Are they the theological students that are taught at the Academy? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where the girls are, too? A. They are not together. There are separate departments for the sexes. We are not a co-educational institute.

Q. But you have pupils of both sexes? A. We have pupils of both sexes; each one, however, separately.

Q. Each sex? A. Each sex. There is a department for young ladies, and a department for young men, and the theological department is entirely separate.

Q. You desire to correct your testimony to the extent of saying that the girls are not now taught that; that the girls now do not receive any instruction on that subject? A. I would correct that they neither now, nor, in fact, ever received any instruction that subject.

Q. At the Academy? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is the textbook put in their hands? A. I dont know.

Q. You dont know? A. No, they are not taught that subject, so I dont know what they have. The school does not take that up, that I know.

Q. Do you mean your answer to cover this question, that young girls have never been taught at the Academy this book?

Objected to by Mr. Hensel as irrelevant.

THE COURT. It may not be relevant, but he has already said that the book is not put in their hands as a textbook. It is not taught.

Bishop Pendleton Testifies.

The REV. W. F. PENDLETON was then called by Mr. Hensel.

He testified that he had been a minister for thirty-six years, and had been teaching in the theological school of which he was the Principal for about twenty-four years; also that he had practically given all the lectures on the subject of conjugial love in the theological school for twenty years.

Q. To what classes are teachings on that subject restricted? A. To theological students and to the graduating class of college young men.

Q. Has there been any instruction or teaching to women? A. None whatever.

Cross-examined by Mr. Coyle.

Q. Has this doctrine never been taught there [at the Academy] to the girl students--the women? A. It has not.

Q. Directly or indirectly that you know of? A. Neither directly nor indirectly in the schools,--you mean in the schools, you are speaking of the schools?

Q. Yes, sir. A. It has not been taught directly or indirectly.

Mr. Coyle paused for a few moments at this answer. Mr. Seward, who was sitting near, then spoke with him, after which he continued:

Q. Has the Academy any connection with the teaching of that to women adults outside of the schools? A. None whatever.

This ended the cross-examination, after which Mr. Hensel offered in evidence Professor Odhners book, LAWS OF ORDER.

Mr. Doering was recalled by the Court to testify whether there was any difference between the Convention and the General Church with regard to baptism as being requisite for entrance into the Church. He testified that there was this difference, that the General Church requires baptism.

In answer to the informal question by the Court, the Rev. Wm. L. Worcester answered from the floor, There is no written law (that is as to baptism being a requisite for membership in the Church), but custom requires it.*

* Compare Mr. Kramphs opinion, p. 88.

Mr. Worcester was then recalled by Mr. Coyle in rebuttal of the testimony of Mr. Aldens notes of the lectures of his father, the Rev. John Worcester.

He testified that his father had written the report of 1879 for the Council of Ministers of the Convention. Being asked what his father taught, he stated:

I wish to submit the first two pages of this report ... for this reason: because, in this my father explained his own position in the matter, I think that it is fair to let him interpret his own instruction rather than have any interpretation put on it.

He further testified that the first long paragraph of the report was practically identical with the Resolution on this subject adopted in 1903.

Mr. William McGeorge, recalled by Mr. Coyle, testified as to Mr. Benades school, regarding which various documents had been put in evidence by Mr. Hensel. Asked what the school was, and where it was in 1856, he answered:

A. That school was a school for children that was started in that little building at Cherry and Claymont Streets, the upper floor of which was used for the place of meeting or worship of that little Philadelphia Society.

Q. How long did that school last? A. It ended in 63.

Q. Was it or not the beginning of this Academy in any sense? A. I never thought of it as the beginning of this Academy.

Mr. Coyle was continuing with a question as to the letters, when Hensel explained that they had been offered merely to show the views on educational questions at that time by these different men, their thought as to the future university of the church--so far as they indicate the intent of the testator.

Mr. Coyle then asked whether the men who were cooperating with Mr. Benade at the time of these letters between Mr. Kramph and others continued to cooperate with him afterwards.

In answer to the objection by Mr. Hensel, he offered to show that they did not cooperate with him, for Mr. Benade changed his views in 1856, and Iungerich and the rest ceased to cooperate with him.

Mr. Hensel stated that the letters had not been offered for any such purpose.

The question was disallowed by the Court.

This ended the taking of testimony.

----------

The argument was opened at 10.00 A. M., on July 9th, by Mr. Coyle, who gave a brief presentation of the case for the Trustees.

Argument by Mr. Coyle.

The will (he said) devised the residue of the estate to seven Trustees and their successors. The fund should therefore go to the present Trustees. But if these Trustees were not legitimate successors of the original Trustees, and if the Court should say the will meant nothing when it said the Orphans Court of Philadelphia must fill vacancies in case of default on the part of the Trustees, then he asked that the claim of the Academy be not allowed. To grant it would be to disregard the preferences of Mrs. Kramph. Furthermore, the Academy did trot comply with the will in that it was not located in Philadelphia.

Mr. Coyle then turned to the teaching of the Academy.

Now you have two opposing bodies here; one saying it is and the other saying that it is not a doctrine of the Church. These people do not teach that doctrine. and we have so shown: and our last position is that if the Court ... finds ... that they [the Academy] do teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, our contention is that this Court and no Court could award them this money, because they teach a doctrine contrary to morals and social order, and contrary to the civil law, teaching as legitimate things which the Acts of Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania describe as crime, and punishable by imprisonment, and you cannot award to anybody, corporate or individual, a fund provided by a testator where such use is to be made of it. You cannot give to an organization a fund, which organization you would, if you were sitting in the Court of Common Pleas, refuse to charter if its purposes were made known to the Court.

Argument by Mr. Weill.

Mr. Coyle was followed by Mr. Weill for the Academy. Mr. Weills speech is omitted here because his arguments are all included in the Academys Brief.

(See page 364.) He presented the claim of the Academy, analyzing the will, and showing that Convention was far from Mr. Kramphs mind when he contemplated a New Church University.

Argument by Mr. Appel.

Mr. Appel spoke on behalf of the heirs is the opening of the afternoon session. He stated that it had been the original intention of the heirs that the case should be submitted to the Court on a statement of facts, and this bitter feeling should never have been brought up. However, under the circumstances, he was prepared to attack both the claimants and to claim that the bequest was absolutely void. Neither the Trustees nor the institution came precisely within the terms of the will, but he was content to let the two claimants argue the case against each other.

Taking up the question of location, Mr. Appel thought that the reason why Mr. Kramph put the proposed university in Philadelphia was in order that; the fund might be administered in Philadelphia. He could not see how this would be the case with the university in Montgomery County and its office in Philadelphia; if they could take it out of Philadelphia they could just as well go to Salt Lake City.

He did not think it competent for the Court to decide which is the correct branch of the Swedenborgian Church. That Church had produced no rules, regulations, or constitutions whereby one could go, as in other churches, to the fundamental law, and find out which was the true body and what the true doctrine. Their conventions were merely collections of members for talking over things, but had no binding force, and their religion was that each individual can stand by himself. He then cited cases where bequests had been held void on account of indefiniteness, and continued:

This will is as uncertain as if Mr. Kramph had said, I give this to the seven Trustees for the purpose of establishing a Christian university within the city of Philadelphia, who shall teach the Gospels as laid down in the New Testament.

He then took up the question of the doctrines themselves, to promote the teaching of which, the bequest was undoubtedly made.

Now I take the broad position here that any institution that teaches the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg in their entirety is teaching something which is against the law and order of the State. A bequest to such an institution or for such a purpose is voided as against public policy. (He added that he was not attacking any branch of the Swedenborgian Church.)

I simply say that the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg themselves, which include this book on CONJUGIAL LOVE, are against public morals, and no Court in this land will do anything that would be lending its influence in defense of something that is against sound morals and public policy, as the doctrines of that book are.*

* Here, and at several other points of his address, the speaker brought his hand heavily down upon the copy of CONJUGIAL LOVE which lay before him.

I am not attaching the doctrines or the charter collaterally; I am simply asking you to take Mr. Kramphs money and award it to a lawful place, not to a place that will teach unlawful doctrines.... You cannot give it to somebody to teach immoral practices, or to teach doctrines such as are laid down in this book.

He concluded by calling attention to a Pennsylvania case where a trust for an infidel society was held void, and continued:

I take it that a doctrine such as is taught in that book is worse than any infidel doctrine that could be brought forward, so far as public policy is concerned.

Argument by Mr. Hensel.

Mr. Hensel continued the argument for the Academy. He opened by saying that Mr. Kramph would probably turn in his grave if he thought that the Counsel of his grandchildren were opposing this claim on the ground that the bequest was on a parallel with a bequest to an infidel society. He also noted their inconsistency in, at the same time, claiming a bequest to distribute the works of Swedenborg to German universities.

Coming to the issue of the case, he continued, that despite the great amount of testimony there were but two single points which comprise the whole core of the legal question which is to be determined. First, What was the intent of the testator, and, second, If that intent had been found to be the endowment of an institution such as the Academy, can the fund be awarded to that institution directly? He then cited a case where the Supreme Court had affirmed a decision based on a Pennsylvania Act, which provides that no disposition of property ... made for any religious, charitable, literary or scientific use, shall fail for want of a trustee or by reason of the devise being indefinite,... or dependent upon the discretion of such trustee; but it shall be the duty of the Orphans Court ... to supply a trustee, and by its decrees to carry into effect the intent of the donor or testator.... The duty before the Court was therefore, first, to ascertain the intent of the testator, and, second, to carry out that intent and supply a Trustee, or depute the Trustee created by statute or incorporation.

Mr. Hensel then discussed these two points, showing that the will provided that the Executors should pay the fund direct to the University, if the latter had been established prior to final settlement. The Academy had been so established; the Trustees of the will were therefore dismissed, their trust being merely a dry trust. After citing cases, Mr. Hensel continued: What is the answer?

The answer ... of the gentlemen here (glancing over at Mr. McGeorge) who come forward in the ungracious attitude of saying: We have no use for this money; it is utterly impotent in our hands; we have no educational institution which meets the requirements, and under the ordinary course of events there never will be, for if we get the fund we will not know what to do with it.*
*See Mr. McGeorges remarks on this point, p. 122 (8), 126 (5), and also Mr. Worcesters letter, p. 131.

They say: You are not entitled to receive it, but we are going to take it, because we are the Trustees who succeeded the Trustees nominated by Mr. Kramph; we will take the money and hold it peradventure, forever and forever, and the Academy which Mr. Kramph desired will never be built.

It will remain for centuries a castle in the air, without foundation, and teach only in the clouds and hare the clouds to answer to.

They did not pretend that the Academy did not fulfill the requirements of the will as to income, nor did they seriously contend that it was not founded in the City of Philadelphia. Its charter left no doubt that it was founded for the purpose of universal New Church education, whatever the gentleman may charge as to the perversion or the subversion of that purpose. The present was not the place nor the jurisdiction to decide whether it was or was not doing that for which it was founded.

Mr. Hensel then turned to the question of interpretation. Premising that, by this case, the book, CONJUGIAL LOVE, has been advertised better than ever before, he continued:

The records show that there is not in all the world any central body which has the fundamental right to lay down the doctrine of Emanuel Swedenborg, or what is the proper interpretation of his Writings. There is no standard; there is no Heidelberg Catechism, no Confession of Dort, no Westminster Catechism, no Papal decree.... There is no central body anywhere....There are Swedenborgian Churches all over the world, but there is no body, no body of doctrine, no dogma, no confession, no catechism, no creed, no single article outside of the literal translation of the Writings of Swedenborg himself, adoption of and subscription to which is the test of a member of the New Church. That has been admitted all around and testified to by everybody in this case.

For the past century in this country there had been almost numberless differentiations of ecclesiastical authority in this Church,--Central Convention, Pennsylvania Association, General Convention, and,--most significant of all,

admitted by Mr. McGeorge, who comes here the Atlas of the cause he represents,--the First Philadelphia Society, which is the principal congregation, as we old churchmen call it, because I believe you and I and everybody is an old churchman who is not a New Churchman--I think some will be called middle church, but we are all old churchmen--we have what we call a congregation, the largest in the city of Philadelphia;

and another the largest, the oldest, the most public in the city of Baltimore ... and yet from 1840 to 1889 they were not subject to the domination of the General Convention, membership in which (turning to Mr. McGeorge) you now bring forward as the test of whether or not the professors in this Academy teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem.

During all the years of the stormy agitation between the Central and General Conventions, the Lancaster Society, of which Mr. Kramph had been a member, adhered to the Central Convention and not to the General, not joining the latter until seven years after Mr. Kramphs death. In any case, no mere mechanical connection with societies or bodies could be any criterion of whether or not one is a New Churchman. As had been suggested by the Court, it was not even requisite that the members or founders of this institution be members of the New Church. The will required nothing more than that the University was to be founded for universal New Church education, and to educate ministers to teach the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg, as they understand them.

Now if official connection with the General Convention is not necessary or is not the test; if this is not the touchstone to determine whether or not this institution falls within the requirements of this will, what is the objection made to it? The objection is not made that it does not teach the doctrines; it is admitted that it does teach the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg. It is admitted that we are the custodians of an historical portrait of Emanuel Swedenborg. (Here Mr. Hensel parenthetically added that the Academys right to this portrait had been recognized because it was a representative educational institution.*) There is a great library. It has all the equipment of a modern university, and has probably the largest collection of Swedenborgiana in this country, if not in the world. It teaches the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg, and there has not been a single, solitary exception taken to that, except in one minor and very limited phase.

* See p. 205, note.

Now what is the allegation? They have no right to teach Swedenborgs CONJUGIAL LOVE.

Although Mr. Appel says that the distribution of that work ... is so immoral that no Court should permit a bequest to go, Mr. Kramph, the testator, was perfectly familiar with that book, and every man who has been brought into this proceeding on the other side, and especially those who represent the theological institutions--those representatives of the claimants of this fund represented by Mr. McGeorge--have declared that this work is advertised and published as a theological work, and is taught in their seminary as a theological work--therefore, I say they are estopped from saying that it is not a fit work to be taught to theological students. But I dont care whether you call it a moral or theological work, medical or sanitary; it is the writing of Emanuel Swedenborg. They believe, both sides, that he was inspired of God to write it, and every word of it. I understand that neither side defends the position that every line was not Divine Revelation, but whether they do or not, what Mr. Kramph said in his will was this, That they are to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

He then referred to the testimony as showing that all recognized the right of private interpretation. The only authority, therefore, was the Writings of Swedenborg, which were before the Court in Latin and English.

Continuing, he then took up what was undoubtedly the, main reliance of the McGeorge Trustees, namely, the attack on the morality of the Academy.

You can see exactly what Swedenborg said on this subject. Now what is the allegation? And, while I concede it is a delicate subject, inasmuch as aspersions have been cast upon the institution, and it is alleged in the newspapers and on the lips of counsel that this institution teaches Swedenborgian doctrine which is inconsistent with public morality, there is not a line of testimony to stand such a charge on. The mean and vague and improper insinuation of Mr. Seward was expunged from the record because he undertook to speak without knowledge and without right. The mistake of Mr. Doering was corrected; and the record stands today thus. Because the bishop, Mr. Pendleton,... teaches here the young men exactly what Swedenborg taught in his CONJUGIAL LOVE--forsooth, that is said to be against public policy.

Mr. Hensel then directed the Courts attention to CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 475. He did not propose to read the paragraph, but simply wanted to say that what Swedenborg teaches is simply this:

That there are various stages of crime against sexual morality. He describes the natural man; his appetites and the unbridled passions which prevail in those who have not attained the very highest degree of purification--and we say it is the common observation of every mans moral experience who tells the truth that that is perhaps the most common and most widely prevalent of human weaknesses, and Swedenborg, not Bishop Pendleton, not the Academy of the New Church, but Swedenborg himself, has described a certain condition in which what he calls pellicacy is a less evil than wandering lust or promiscuous intercourse; and that is the whole of the doctrine and the teaching. Swedenborg himself, in one place,... describes the difference between what he understands to he a sin, that which is to be condemned as an evil--and whereas he speaks of adultery and of the more serious crimes against conjugial love as sins to be condemned, he describes another sexual relation as a lesser evil, and as one to which resort perhaps ought to be made, rather than to incur the ravages of the other.

Now that is about as delicately as I can describe it, and that is precisely what your Honor will find in this testimony offered in evidence. It is what the blessed father of good Mr. Worcester taught his pupils on this subject in the seminary of theology of the Genera Convention, wherein, calling attention to instances falling under his own observation, he says that he had known of young, men who were ruined by promiscuous intercourse, whereas, I would have limited him to one. and where he says that if the natural lust is uncontrollable, then, rather than go into any promiscuous fornication, concubinage is to be preferred.* As a moral doctrine, I say, as a private citizen, that is absolutely true. It is sound philosophy; it is sound religion; and sound sanitation and good citizenship; and, although I know perfectly well how easy it is to pervert the position I hold, I am perfectly willing to stand for it in private or in public; and I say again, that that is exactly what Mr. Seward has said on this subject, not only in the RESOLUTION which he says embodies the doctrine of his branch of the Church on this subject, but in THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD IN RELATION TO PURITY OF LIFE, of which be is the avowed author. He says of concubinage: There are recognized two forms which are distinguished from each other. First, concubinage conjointly with a wife, which is detestable; .., there is also concubinage apart from the wife, when by legitimate, just and real serious causes a man is separated from his wife, and as to these things is nearly in the position of an unmarried man.... For such persons, when there is a separation of partners for the causes named, concubinage is said to be not damnable (indemne...) and not unlawful.* That is so put as the views of the Church.

They are not sins, but they are evils, and the lesser of the passions run loose and wild in unlimited range. That is the teaching of an older man than you and I, of a man advanced in years, and, within my knowledge, it has been the teaching of some of the best and purest men I ever knew, to their own sons.

* See p. 210.

* Quoted from the Report of 1903 in SAVING POWER OF THE LORD, pp. 7 and 8.

Compare Mr. Coyles remarks on p. 230.

Mr. Hensel added that this doctrine was not a conspicuous doctrine, but merely incidental, a minor corner of the great body of Swedenborgian theology.

He then adverted to the question of interpretation, saying that it had come to a contention as to whether or not men shall exercise their right of private judgment in the construction of this doctrine. In this connection he pointed out that this very Council of Ministers of the Convention

DECLARE that it disclaims for itself or for the council the right to define the law of the New Church on any subject, for it has no such authority. The committee may speak with earnestness, still it can only give its understanding of the truth revealed by the Lord in His Word and through His servant Emanuel Swedenborg. Put faith in no council, but in the Lords Word, which is above all councils. Then it goes on to say that this very subject has long been a matter of agitation within the Church.

Mr. Hensel asked the Court to look into the book, not because he believed it was an essential part of the controversy, or that it had anything to do with the real issue, but simply to discharge what I feel to be a professional, even a public duty, to vindicate an institution,--a body of men, from most undeserved and cruel aspersion.

He then again read from Mr. Sewards book, page 17:

If it, that is, this resort to pellicacy, is resorted to, it ought to be with the clear understanding that it is against the laws of Divine order, and allowable only under laws of permission, laws of limitation and restraint. To teach a young man, or a married man separated from his wife that these things are laws of order, is a very different thing from teaching that they are laws of permission only.

If we teach that they are laws of permission, they will at least hesitate.

That is simply coming down to a distinction between laws of order and laws of permission, which certainly no Court in the land will undertake to interpret. It is purely a matter of words. It has no relation to the case.

He added that he referred to these things with reluctance, because they had been bruited about in this somewhat public and sensational way. He supposed that CONJUGIAL LOVE might, in the hands of a girl, be misunderstood, and was quite sure that the Song of Solomon could not be indiscriminately read without risk; and so with hundreds of chapters and thousands of verses in the Old and New Testaments, which lie on the open shelves of every household in Lancaster.

He then showed that the Academy had fulfilled all the requirements of the will, and therefore nothing remained for the Court but to order the Executors to do what Frederick J. Kramph said should be done under the contingency which exists, that is, transfer all their rights under the will to the Trustees of the Academy

Concluding Argument by Mr. Coyle.

The concluding argument was made by Mr. Coyle. He did not understand it to be seriously contended that the roof of the legal succession of his clients was insufficient The testator had certainly intended the Trustees to be perpetuated, for he had provided that, in case of vacancy, they should confer immediately or as soon thereafter as practicable, and appoint some one to fill the vacancy.

They did not hold a formal meeting, but they did confer, and by writing appointed their successors, and here they are today, having proven their title.

Mr. Coyle contended that under the will any institution that should take the fund should be incorporated by the Trustees, to whom the money was devised.

It was devised to them for the purpose of endowing a university. They were obliged to hold the fund until it yielded an income of $4,000 a year. The will did not contemplate that any body of men outside of these Trustees could establish a school and ask for the fund, even if they had complied with all the
requisites. The discretion and right was vested in the Trustees to use this money to establish this school or to [give it to] any particular school or college, or to divide it.

Mr. Kramphs idea was (continued Mr. Coyle) to cause the fund to be transferred to these Trustees immediately upon the final settlement of his estate, that there should be an institution incorporated by them, and that they should no longer hold it as Trustees under his will, but pass it on to the chartered institution.

The Trustees were not to hand the fund to any body or every body who say, We comply with the requirements of the will, but they were to incorporate themselves, and use the fund to establish a school. Discretion was placed with them. They were to give the fund only to such persons as, in their judgment, would comply with the requirements of the will; and if they abused that discretion they were amenable to the Court. They were not and never had been in the position of inactive Trustees. They had an active duty to perform right there nod then. If the Academy, for instance, had failed in the requisite of income, the Court would undoubtedly have awarded the fund to the Trustees.

But (continued Mr. Coyle) just as important, more so, more important, vastly more so, is the third requisite, as to whether they teach the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg.

And then he entered into the question of the doctrines. Up to this point his manner bad been hesitating, and gave a decided appearance that he lacked conviction, but from this point he spoke with confidence, as though on surer ground.

He began by referring to the unwillingness of Courts to decide questions of doctrine, unless the doctrines are subversive of the social order, or against morality.

And how was the Court to decide whether the academy taught the doctrines of the New Jerusalem when they had no authoritative body to which you can turn and say, This is an essential doctrine of the Church, and no man who comes who fails to give adherence to that is a member of the Church? Two opposite doctrines had been presented. With no fountain head to turn to, the Court would have to decide for all this Church, That it is sinful for a man and woman to have carnal connection outside of the marriage state, or that it is not sinful,--to undertake the vast responsibility and the prodigious task of sitting in judgment upon a work of theology* of a man whom they all believe was Divinely illumined and infallible.

* By a work on theology, Mr. Coyle evidently means CONJUGIAL LOVE.

This showed that the duty of the Court was

to put this fund into the hands of the Trustees, and let this religious body fight it out amongst themselves. I used the word fight, not as indicating any bitter relation between these people, because I take it they are here from conscientious motives, as I will come to in a moment or two.

If, however, the Court would not do this, what other course was left? Would the question of the respective influence of the General Convention and the General Church he entered into? If so, then upon the one hand was the General Convention, established in 1817, the general body of the Church in this country, containing the vast majority of the societies, associations and individual members of the Church in the United States. Which was most likely to be right? This general and national body, or this body which seceded?

The Court should say, This is a religious question which I will not determine, but the general body of the Church seems to be represented by the Convention, and the General Church ... is a secessionist, and therefore, and because it disputes what is taught by the General Convention, I will not determine the question in their favor on that point, that is, as to whether they teach the doctrine of Swedenborg or not.

I will not pass upon the religious question, but will turn this fund over to the Trustees. I will fail to turn it over to a body seceding from what is said to be the general body of the Church, and let the question be determined subsequently, the Trustees being the custodians, and having a duty to perform, which, later on, will be supervised.

If, however, the Court did not consider this sufficient to indicate which body teaches the doctrine, he would perhaps try to seek what was in the testators mind,what he thought were the doctrines of Swedenborg. If the testator were here now, and said that his meaning was that the college should not teach a certain doctrine of the Church, which I was opposed to, his testimony would be taken and the fund would be awarded accordingly. But he was not here to tell the Court what he thought was the true doctrine of Swedenborg, and so we must inquire as to the condition of things when he made that will, and when he said the Church should teach these doctrines.

Why (continued Mr. Coyle), this doctrine had not been promulgated at all, had not been known at all by anybody outside of the Church, otherwise it would have been made the subject of attack, just as it is now; just as it will be now, just as it would be in the minds of people into whose hands it fell. If that was not a doctrine of the Church at that time, then it would be safe for the Court to assume that he did not have it in contemplation at all; and that he meant it to go only to such an institution as taught the doctrines of that time.

It was not disputed that prior to 1879 there was no formal declaration made by any body of the Church in regard to this doctrine. It had not been taken seriously into consideration; it was not in the mind of Mr. Kramph. If the Court would decide according to what was in the mind of the testator, and if there was no such doctrine, then the Court will do its duty by preventing the money from going to any such body as does teach any such doctrine. there was no necessity for the Courts going into any of these questions if the Trustees were ready to take and were vested with discretion.

And then Mr. Coyle entered into what was evidently the principal ground on which he relied,--the question of the morality of the Academy.

There is another very serious objection to the payment of this money to the claimants, the Academy. It is a question which I would discuss without regard to the personality of anybody connected with it, and I want to be understood as discussing it purely in the light of its conflict with the civil law, save as I may be perhaps driven into observations in reply to observations that have been made upon the subject. I do declare for the people whom I represent in this contention that they are here from conscientious motives, and not from any feeling that there may be, and I do not know that there is any between the bodies of this Church; but they are here because they believe it to be their duty to divert a fund of nearly forty thousand dollars from an institution which admits that it teaches the permissibility and the rightfulness of things which the Pennsylvania law denominates as crimes.

He could not agree with Mr. Hensels aspersions on the heirs. On the contrary, he thought

Mr. Kramph would be more likely to turn in his grave if he thought that today this fund of forty thousand dollars ... was attempted to be used to promote the violation of the fundamental law of the State in which he lived and the country in which he lived.

Mr. Hensel, I do not know whether consciously or unconsciously, slated to your honor the teaching of the General Convention on this subject, and did not give your honor the teaching of the Academy. What he told you the Academy taught was what the General Convention taught.* It was the skillful sailing of the lawyer who would put his clients in the position of teaching that a thing was wrong, whereas that was the position of the other side. These folks teach they admitted it in the early testimony of Mr. Doering on the stand, and I have the written testimony here before me in the form of the Declaration their bishop--that sexual relations outside of the marriage relation are permissible and right and not sinful....

How can it be said that they teach no wrong? How can it be said that they teach no commission of crimes against the laws of Pennsylvania, when in their Declaration, in their evidence, they treat, in speaking of marriage, of the relation analogous to marriage, the relation that permits a man to have to do with a woman other than his wife, which permits a married man to have a concubine, even while living with his wife.*

* The reader may see for himself whether or not this statement is correct by reference to Mr. Hensels speech, particularly to his statement, They are not sins, but they are evils, and the lesser of two evils (p. 225). See also p. 224.

* This statement was so glaringly false that Mr. Odhner went to Mr. Worcester and asked him whether he was willing that this statement should go before the public as representing the teaching of the Academy. Mr. Worcester, who appeared much distressed, then wrote on a slip of paper words to the effect that the Academy does not teach that concubinage conjointly with the wife is permissible. Having shown the paper to Mr. Odhner, he then walked up to Mr. Coyle and handed it to him while he was still speaking. Mr. Coyle continued with his speech and did not look at the paper for some minutes. He then took a hasty glance at it and laid it on the table. It was evident that it had no effect upon his speech.

Not the book, declaring the different degrees of evil; that is, what we say about it; that is, it is a, moral book, that such and such and such is a crime, a greater crime, a graver crime, but all are wrong and sinful; while they say that these things are right. I wont read the particulars of it, because your honor has got it before you--that is, the Declaration--and you have got the exact circumstances under which not only is the thing a lesser evil than other things, but under which it is absolutely right for a man to do, and not commit a violation of the commandment of God and the teaching of Swedenborg. They say, Go out and do these things thus and so and you are not sinning. We say, and Swedenborg in his theological works said, and we teach, Thou shalt not commit adultery. In the natural sense this refers not only to adultery, but also to willing and doing obscene things and thence thinking and speaking them. That only to lust is adultery appears from the Lords words. (Mr. Coyle here stated that he was reading from TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313.) So, in his DOCTRINE OF LIFE, which is the other book to which I have referred, teaching that all these things are wrong, that they are sinful; and they, the body that asks for this money, say they are right.

MR. HENSEL: What part of the Declaration are you reading from?

MR. COYLE: Not from that at all.

MR. HENSEL: You said you found it in the Declaration that it was right.

MR. COYLE (reading from the Declaration): The relation that is analogous to marriage has been presented in full in the foregoing.

MR. HENSEL: You say it is not in CONJUGIAL LOVE?

MR. COYLE: The Court cannot find what you teach in any other thing than in what you have put in evidence as your teaching. I am reading from what you teach. I am not reading from the book. You speak of the Bible containing some things which people cannot read. Certain things in that book you cannot, but when you teach from the Bible those things and say it was right, when we dont teach from that book the things which are wrong, as the law of Pennsylvania says, things that are wrong. They are just the things referred to in the Bible; they are all there. What body of men teach that those things are right? If that were done you would not have many people reading the Holy Scriptures. That is to put a construction upon them that would permit things to be done which are a plain violation of the Decalogue.

Those two books (laying emphatic hands on TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION and DOCTRINE OF LIFE) show the pure mind of Swedenborg. These are the books from which his theology is derived. The bigger book is called the UNIVERSAL THEOLOGY of the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. This (laying his hands on CONJUGIAL LOVE) is simply a moral book, moral theology, in which the various degrees of crime are described, but not permissions given to anybody.

Mr. Coyle then continued reading from the Declaration:

The relation analogous to marriage has been presented in the foregoing. It is not to be entered into with any woman except one who has been led astray from the paths of virtue. If not with any other it is to be entered into with her. It is not necessary to make that implication.

And during the continuance of that relation, such woman shall not have any dealings with any other man. This is what the General Church, through its Joint Council of Ministers, called together for this very purpose, ratify, making this presentation for this Court. And during the continuance of that relation such woman should not have any dealings with any other man. But this relation, entered into or established with women other than those wile have departed from the paths of virtue would break the bond of society and destroy the order of heaven. That is, if you have intercourse with a woman who has fallen, it is all right, but it would break the bonds of society if with anybody else. It is absolutely forbidden in the doctrines of the New Church and is not to be admitted into thought or consideration by the members of the church.

The uses of this doctrine as given in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE in establishing a condition analogous to marriage, as intermediate between an elderly marriage on the one hand, and adultery and promiscuous whoredom on the other, are, as the doctrine states, in accord with the common perception of mankind and the teachings of experience.

That is what you are asked to send out with the forty thousand dollars; to carry on these uses: the cure of physical disease, the healing or prevention of insanity, the restoration of conjugial love. What does that mean? I cannot take any other meaning, than that this carnal connection is entered into so as to bring a man into the marriage state. They teach that physically.

The wrong doctrine was stated to be your doctrine by Mr. Hensel. This is the doctrine of the Trustees, of the people whom I represent: And we further declare, willful indulgence by a Christian in all practices of impurity, including fornication and concubinage, a transgression of this commandment and to be regarded as sinful in the sight of God.* Put the one beside the other. The one is clean, the other unclean....

* Quoted from the Conventions Resolution of 1903.

Your Honor is asked to say that this is not wrong because it is perhaps a sanitary measure. I do not think that any violation of the law has been asked for in any Court of justice for any such reason as that. Still I only want to speak of it as a violation of the law.... No man in the world would regard more carefully, or speak of the religious convictions of another more carefully than I; but ... the morality or the immorality of these two interpretations of the book are before you,... and peal the death of the Academys claim.... This is not a case where there is a collateral attack on the charter; it is a case where the charter is of a corporation and says, I fulfill certain qualifications of that instrument in your hands; give us the money, and Your Honor inquiries, You have the first, second, and third qualifications, but I find that the third is against the law lying under my hand. I am not attacking your charter. You are here saying that you do certain things, and the very things you say you do are against the law. I cannot give it to you; I cannot give it to you.

The reader will note the admission that the Academy has the third qualification, i. e., teaches the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, etc., and the charge to the Court that this third qualification was against the law. The Court agreed with both the admission and the charge.

After some further remarks on the question of collateral attack, Mr. Coyle continued:

I think the protection which the gentleman, Mr. Hensel, felt he wanted to get, which he felt it necessary for him to get for his client, perhaps led him into the statement that this is what fathers teach their boys.

If this is what is done; if this is what is to be done, then, indeed, God save the Commonwealth. What father could sit down with his boy and teach that? I do not believe any father does it. I do not believe it. Whether he does or whether he does not, the law of Pennsylvania says it is wrong, and I believe in my soul that if Frederick J. Kramph were here today, I believe that if he has observation or communication with things upon this earth, that, there is no being in the physical life or in the spiritual life more in dread lest this money go to the propagating of such doctrine than he. It is shocking to the moral sense of any community; it is a violation of the law of Pennsylvania; it is doing a, thing which was not thought of when he made his will; it is something which the law says must not be done.... The owner of property may do as he pleases, provided that in disposing of property the disposition be not to an unlawful purpose. Now the Court has got exactly what they teach, what they propose to do. Your Honor knows that it is an unlawful purpose, and that ought to be sufficient.

Then dropping his voice till it could hardly be heard except by those close by, Mr. Coyle concluded:

Suppose that this legacy here was one to establish a place where indulgence of this kind could be had with fallen women? Would your Honor give it to anybody? Not at all. You would say it was au unlawful purpose. Suppose F. J. Kramph had said, I give the residue of my estate to establish a house of this character, where people indulge and are permitted to do it. You would not give it for a second; and the converse of that is just as exactly true. These people come in and say they want it, and if they fulfill the requirements of the will, that is exactly what you can do.

6.

THE FIRST DECISION.

The arguments of Counsel were concluded on the afternoon of Thursday, July 9, and, in accordance with the intimation given by the Court on that day, the decision was handed down on the following Monday, July 13. It was a lengthy document of nineteen closely written typewritten pages, and held that a devise to teach the doctrines laid down in the Writings of Swedenborg was void.

The Academy Fulfills All Requirements.

The decision notes that the Trustees were intended as the temporary custodians of the gift. It was the purpose of the testator to have it ultimately placed with a corporate body. Then, after stating the claims of the Academy, the Court continues:

If the Academy represents a university of the New Church, as contemplated by the testator, such as he directed his Trustees to have incorporated, is it possible to twist his words into an expression of intention to give the devise to the Trustees? The duties imposed upon them were transitory, and their fulfillment was the organization of a body to receive the devise, such as the Academy is alleged to be. It would be foolish to shuffle these funds by awarding them to the Trustees, and have them in turn voluntarily, or by decree of Court, pay them to the Academy. Furthermore, the testator expressly says that if before the final settlement of the estate the proper institution has been incorporated, to it are they to be paid. Under those conditions the Trustees are dropped, their commission never having ripened. The New Church university then becomes directly the object of the testators bounty.

But the Trustees contend that the Academy is not such a corporation as was contemplated by the testator, not because it does not teach the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, but because it teaches too many of them, more than does the General Convention of the New Jerusalem, which they claim is the superior body of the New Church, alleging that the Academy is only a dissenting branch, that the Academy teaches Swedenborgs Writings on the delights of conjugial and scortatory love, and argue that these Writings are not of a theological character, but relate entirely to moral questions.

The testators directions were, to teach the doctrines as laid down in the Writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg, and he makes it clear that when he so intended he could and would distinguish between the Writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg and his theological writings. In the present case, he had in view the teaching of the principles found in the Writings of Swedenborg, but in the bequest of six hundred dollars for the libraries of German universities he confined it to copies of the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, showing that he knew how to distinguish the Writings if he chose to do so.*

* This was one of the arguments advanced by counsel for the Academy. Its soundness is not only evinced by the language of the Will as here analyzed, but is also confirmed by the following indisputable facts: 1. Mr. Kramph was an intimate friend and admirer of Mr. Benade, whose idea of New Church education was truly universal, including education in science, art, and philosophy as well as theology. 2. Mr. Kramph had the same ideas. (See his letter to Mr. Benade on pp. 89, 379.) 3. Mr. Kramph was a. reader and admirer of Swedenborgs scientific works, for (a) he was one of the original subscribers of the Swedenborg Association, organized by Dr. J. J. Garth Wilkinson and others in 1845 for the translation and publication of Swedenborgs scientific writings, the publications of which society are almost all the translations of these writings ever printed. (b) Among Mr. Kramphs books were found a number of the scientific writings, including Opera Mineralia (3 vols.). See p. 137 (8).

Possibly nothing written by Swedenborg had awakened so much attention or had excited as much controversy, both by members of the New Church and those connected with other churches, as his writings on conjugial and scortatory love. CONJUGIAL LOVE was one of his published books with which undoubtedly the testator was familiar. It is fair to infer that it was the one book which had been brought more conspicuously and more frequently to his attention than any other. If he had not intended it to be included among the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg which were to be taught he would have excluded it.

This was shown clearly by the legacy of five hundred dollars to the Lancaster Society, which was to be used for sermons and lectures or for the Purchase and distribution of such writings of Emanuel Swedenborg and other New Church authors as they may deem most efficacious. But when it came to the education of New Jerusalem ministers, how can it be said that he did not consider the moral teachings found in the writings of Swedenborg as essential as the theology?... Both branches of the New Church teach that Swedenborgs writings were the result of Divine inspiration; that the angels of heaven communicated directly with him; therefore it must be conceded by those who are his disciples that what he wrote are the infallible decrees of Divinity. Both hold that, by baptism and by accepting the writings of Swedenborg, one becomes regularly affiliated with the New Church. And it is an emphasized feature of the church that no one is controlled by any dogmatic power other than Swedenborgs writings, and that each is his own interpreter of the principles enunciated by him. Subject to his writings it is free for all and go as you please.

The General Convention of the New Church does not teach all the decrees which were engrossed by Swedenborg. It has a less complete curriculum than has the Academy.*

* In his final decree Judge Smith stated that this paragraph should have been one sentence, beginning, If the General Convention, etc.

If there was no stronger evidence of his intention, it could be inferred that the testator was not in sympathy with those who taught only some of the writings, from the fact that, in anticipating a possible miscarriage of his favored plan, he did not give the legacy to the General Convention of the New Church, but scatters it through Great Britain and Ireland, Germany and Switzerland.

The Will provided that if the devise should go to the Trustees they were not to transfer any part of it until sufficient funds were provided by other contributors or by the accumulation of the bequest itself, to yield, independently of the cost of the university buildings, an annual income of four thousand dollars.

With the exception of what has been given to the Academy, it does not appear that one dollar has ever been procured, either by subscription or endowments of other contributors. And in view of the facts that there is a prosperous institution at Bryn Athyn, and, as we can fairly infer from the will, there are comparatively few who accept the teachings of Swedenborg, it is not likely that anyone will, in another half century, subscribe to the endowment of a New Church university to be founded in the city of Philadelphia.

The doctrines of the New Church rest upon the fundamental principle that Jesus Christ is the only God, not God in the Christian sense as being with the Father and Holy Ghost of the Trinity, but some other kind of a God. While recognizing Jesus Christ as superior to all men born of woman, and reverently worshiping his Divine nature, the tendency of modern thought, the so-called higher criticism is to question his divinity.... The thought movement is not toward a deification of even the Christians Christ, the Second Person of the Adorable Trinity, much less the Swedenborg God. The possibility of the materialization of the scheme, if this money goes into the hands of the Trustees, is exceedingly remote.

But supposing the fund grew to large proportions, the Trustees would still be required to do exactly what the Academy claims to be doing now, and the then trustees may not then be disposed to exclude any of the writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg; on the contrary, they might be wholly in accord with the Academy, believing Swedenborg to have been inspired, and his writings to be the expressions of divinity.

It would not seem a radical departure for the General Convention of the New Church to enlarge its course of teaching so as to include the writings which have been omitted. Indeed we do not understand that it does not now teach the same doctrines as does the Academy, but differs in the interpretation of some of them. But the testators instructions are clear and specific, and if there is any reason for refusing the legacy to the Academy, there is no reason for giving it to the Trustees.

The Court then cites in full the Declaration of the General Church, together with CONJUGIAL LOVE, Nos. 467-473,* after which he continues:

* These numbers are from the chapter on Concubinage, and concern only the teaching concerning concubinage apart from the wife. The preceding part of the chapter, which distinguishes between two kinds of concubinage, and condemns one kind as detestable; and the end of the chapter, which deals with causes which are only apparently just, and condemns concubinage while the wife is retained, are not noticed.

Devise Declared Illegal.

We do not comment upon this system of philosophy. It is well known that many are prone to condemn as wrong that which they do not approve or understand, and history teaches us that some nations have held that to be a virtue which others denounce as a vice; also that time and progress have worked diametrical changes in ideas of right and wrong.... But, since the dawn of civilization, the principle has been adhered to that for the good of the people and the protection of society the rules of conduct at the time recognized as the law of the land must be sustained. Notwithstanding there may be strong, earnest, intelligent men and women, who accept the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and there are universities which teach the doctrines promulgated by him, and howsoever philosophers of other schools may regard his writings, and even if the multitude see in them substantial food for thought, and, as individuals, find in them philosophical principles, if the gift was intended to be used to sustain a school which shall teach them, and they are in conflict with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and contrary to the accepted public policy, it must fall.

Manners vs. Library Company (93 Pa. 165) is cited, wherein the Court says:

It may be regarded as settled in Pennsylvania that a Court of Equity will not enforce a trust where its object is the propagation of atheism, infidelity, immorality, or hostility to the existing form of government. A man may do things while living which the law will not do for him after he is dead. He may deny the existence of a God, and employ his fortune in the dissemination of infidel views, but should he leave his fortune in trust for such purposes, the law will strike down the trust as contra bones mores.

The decision then quotes from the opinion of Judge Sharswood in Zeisweis vs. James (63 Pa. 465):

If the primary object of the trust of the will is to disseminate infidel views or to attack the popular religion of the country, it would be the duty of a Court of Equity to declare such trusts to be against public policy, and therefore void.

After stating that the will contained no latent ambiguities and that folios of testimony taken were irrelevant, the Court continues:

It appears that the Academy is such a. school as was intended by the testator,... but it also appears that the testators intention was not a proper one, at least in a legal sense. While one in his lifetime may devote his property as he pleases, may choose his God or gods according to the dictates of his own conscience, may adopt any religion which is agreeable to him, and may create his own form of worship, he may not contribute his estate to take effect after his death for the nurture of objects outside of the limits of social identity.

The Academy comes before us as does an individual; one is an artificial body, the other a natural body. Each is an entity in the eyes of the law. Both exist as the products of laws and both are subject to the law of public policy. An illegitimate child is as certainly the offspring of parents as one born in wedlock, and nothing in their appearance distinguishes one from the other. But the law of public policy declares a bastard to be defied, and he may not inherit from his father. And when the same law puts a like stigma on a corporation it may not receive a testamentary gift. Conventionalism imperiously dictates the economics of society. But, assuming the charter of the association to be regular in form, this Court has no more right to question the power of the Court which gave it existence than it has to question the mother of the bastard, and the Court never attacks nor attempts to injure either.

We do not assault the Academys charter rights, only define the testators limitation. But it is of no consequence what the Academy teaches or does not teach, or what any other branch or organization of the New Jerusalem teaches.* It was the testators intention to devise to an educational institution which should teach the doctrines found in the writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg, and such a devise is void. CONJUGIAL LOVE is among these writings and the doctrines therein found are considered injurious and are forbidden by the statutes of public policy. If it was not altogether void, the devise would he refused an institution which taught these doctrines, because it taught them, as well as the one which did not teach them, because it did not teach them. The former because its teachings collided with the law, and the latter because it did not conform to the testators directions. From any point of view this devise seems doomed to perish.

* See note on p. 233.

We find that the testator intended his gift to be used by an institution embodied in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, that some of his writings are found in a volume called CONJUGIAL LOVE, that rules of conduct therein enunciated derogate statutes of the Commonwealth and are in conflict with public policy, as defined by the Supreme Court, therefore the devise is void.

The residue of the estate was therefore awarded to the heirs. Whether or not the bequest to the Lancaster Society was infected with the same incurable malady which has prostrated the devise of the residue of the estate, not being charged on the real estate, there was nothing with which to pay it. The same applied to the bequest to German universities. But no substantial argument can be advanced against the circulation of philosophical books, and in this case they were restricted to theological writings.

It can hardly he said that the interests of Christianity and sound morality require that the student of theology shall be debarred access to all books which may be regarded as objectionable from an orthodox standpoint. He is best armed to defend Christianity who is familiar with arguments against it. (Manners vs. Library Co.)

7.

EXCEPTIONS.

To this opinion, exceptions were filed on behalf of the Academy, the McGeorge Trustees, the Lancaster Society, the German Universities, and the Commonwealth.

Exceptions by the Academy.

The exceptions filed by the Academy were thirteen in number. They may be summarized as excepting:

1. To the finding that the original Trustees had been succeeded by those at present claiming to be Trustees.

2. This was a purely legal objection.

3-7. To the findings and conclusions that the doctrines of CONJUGIAL LOVE and the rules of conduct enunciated in Swedenborgs Writings are injurious and are forbidden by the statutes and public policy, and that a devise to teach them is therefore void.

8-13. To the award of the residue of the estate to the heirs, instead of to the Trustees of the Academy of the New Church.

Exceptions by the Trustees.

The Trustees filed nineteen exceptions, several of them being of some length. They averred that the Court erred:

1-4. In awarding the residue of the estate to the heirs and not to the Trustees by succession under the will.

5. In finding that the testator provided that if a New Church University should be incorporated before settlement of the estate, and before the Trustees had incorporated such university, the devise was to go to others than the Trustees or their successors.

6. In finding that the duties imposed upon the Trustees were transitory, and not that they had the supervision and selection of the contemplated institution.

7. In finding that the Trustees contended the Academy was not such a corporation as was contemplated, because it taught too many of the writings, and not because it did not teach the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg;

and in not finding that the contentions of Trustees (a) that the Academy in this matter was a mere volunteer, (b) was not composed of what would be generally recognized as well known and undoubted members of the New Jerusalem Church in the United States, but (c) is entirely composed of members of a seceding body not connected with the general body of the Church of the New Jerusalem, and especially (d) that it teaches on some points as doctrines of the Church of the New Jerusalem certain things that are absolutely subversive of the real doctrinal teachings of that Church.

8. In finding that the testator directed that the bequest should be used for the education of New Church ministers to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in all of the Writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg, instead of only his theological writings.

9. In not permitting evidence of and finding that the writings of Swedenborg have in the New Church a technical signification and mean his theological writings.

10. In finding that the Convention does not teach all the decrees engrossed by Swedenborg.

11. In not finding that the testator did not give the legacy to the General Convention, but to foreign bodies, only in a possible contingency of true and faithful members of the New Church in the United States, not being appointed for the carrying out; of the will.

12. In finding that both branches of the Church teach that the angels of heaven communicated directly with him (Swedenborg), and therefore it must be conceded by those who are his disciples that what he taught are the infallible decrees of divinity; instead of finding that, in matters of doctrine, Swedenborg himself declares that he was not permitted to receive instruction from any angel, but only from the Lord himself while reading his Word.

13. In finding and in not permitting proof to the contrary, that the writings of Swedenborg are the sole authority and test for membership, together with baptism; and in not finding that the real teaching of the New Church is that the Word is the only authority, and Swedenborg is only to be used in interpreting, opening and making clear the meaning of the Word; and that members of the New Church, therefore, are not permitted to teach anything as doctrine which is not drawn from the letter of the Bible or Word and is not confirmed by it.*

* Cf. Mr. Worcesters testimony that the requisites for membership in the General Convention are acceptance of the doctrines of Swedenborg and baptism (see p. 203).

14. In interpreting CONJUGIAL LOVE as teaching anything in violation of law or morals, and in selecting a few words from one of Swedenborgs books written for a particular purpose, instead of taking them in their context and as modified and controlled by his positive and direct teaching in those of his books which are universally recognized as theological in their character; and in not permitting full proof of the purpose for which the book was written, and admitting in evidence proof of his teaching in those of his books which are universally recognized as theological in their character, as well as proof that such books are so universally recognized.

15. In finding that the materialization of the testators scheme for establishing a University was exceedingly remote.

Cf. Mr. McGeorges statement that it will probably be impracticable to set up such an institution as Mr. Kramph did contemplate, and that the only feasible thing will be to turn the money over to the Academy (see p. 126 (5). See also p. 131.

16. In finding that the testator was not in sympathy with the General Convention, for the testimony showed that in his letter to Bishop Benade, written in 1856, he advises Benade to look to the General Convention as the body to support him in his movements.

See the letter itself on p. 89.

17. In finding that the testators intention was not a proper one in a legal sense.

18. In concluding that a devise to teach the doctrines of Swedenborg is void.

19. In finding that it does not understand that it (the General Convention) does not now teach the same doctrine as the Academy.

The exceptions by the other exceptants were purely formal.

8.

ARGUMENT ON EXCEPTIONS.

Arguments on the exceptions were heard at Lancaster before Judge Smith on December 19th and 23d.

Argument by Mr. Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON opened the argument on behalf of the McGeorge Trustees.*

* Mr. Johnsons fame attracted a large audience, composed mainly of the members of the local bar, who left after he had finished speaking. With this exception all the Lancaster hearings of the Kramph Case were attended only by those directly concerned in its conduct, and about a dozen or more gentlemen from Bryn Athyn, and one or two from the Philadelphia (Chestnut Street) Society.

Before he spoke it was mutually agreed that the legacies to the Lancaster Society and German Universities should be paid.

Mr. Johnson stated that he proposed to discuss the exceptions filed to .finding, by which the Church of the New Jerusalem had been stigmatized as a Church so immoral that it was unable to receive a testamentary gift. The issue raised by that finding transcends infinitely any question of money it goes to the life of men. He proposed to discuss, first, the object of the bequest; and, second, whether that object was immoral. On the first point, after reading from the will, he said:

The purpose of the bequest was to endow a university for universal New Church education, and for the education of New Church ministers.

The New Church ministers so educated are afterwards to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

Now that university is not for the purpose of teaching the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. It is a university for the purpose of inculcating New Church education, and educating New Church ministers. Those ministers thereafter are to promulgate and to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as found in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. It does not necessarily follow that they are to teach any writings; they are to inculcate and promote in that university the New Church education,--and there is the thing that we are to consider: What is the Church of the New Jerusalem? What is New Church education? Not to consider whether the founder of the Church, in some works that he may have promulgated, may have said some things we do not like,--but, What is the doctrine of the Church?...

How are you to find the doctrine? Are you to find it in one book? Are you to find it in a work not a doctrinal works or are you to find the doctrine of the New Church in the books which are doctrinal works? There is to be an education in the whole of the works of the founder of the sect. Where is there any evidence in this case to show precisely what the doctrines of the New Church area ... It is said that there is this book on CONJUGIAL LOVE, that states some things which offend against morality, but the first question that you are to consider is, whether that book is a doctrinal book, whether that book is a book upon theology. Because the man who is the founder of a sect may have written upon science or a great many things, he may have expressed a great many views, in some of which you do, and in some of which you do not concur. But what is the doctrine that he taught, which is the foundation, and is the Church? If it is not a theological work, it cannot be a work that promulgates a doctrine, and it cannot be, that education in the Church, and the New Church doctrine, is an education which offends against morality because there is some book, which is not a theological book, in which the author expresses some views which we do not like.

Mr. Johnson then reviewed the testimony to see whether this book is accepted in this Church as a book of theology, whether it is accepted in that Church as a doctrinal book at all. Mr. Doerings testimony was quoted to show that the work does not treat of theology, but chiefly of morals (page 177); and further, Mr. Coyles offer to prove by the Rev. Samuel S. Seward that it is a part of the teachings of the Church of the New Jerusalem that this book of CONJUGIAL LOVE is not a theological book, was so declared by Swedenborg.*

* It will be noted that Mr. Johnson quotes only the offer to prove (see p. 179). He does not cite Mr. Sewards testimony that CONJUGIAL LOVE was advertised and published by the American Swedenborg Society as a theological work (see p. 197).

Mr. Johnson then continued:

Now therefore a book, not a theological book, can hardly be said to be a book which teaches the doctrines of a church. The writer of the Church doctrine is entirely at liberty to write on various subjects of morals, and of science, and of literature, and to express views which may or may not be accepted as sound or proper.

To show what was the doctrine of the New Jerusalem on the subject upon which the Church had been attacked, the testimony of Mr. McGeorge was read, that it was never the doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem that the intercourse of men and women outside of the marriage state was sinless (page 199), and Mr. Worcesters testimony to the same effect (page 191). Mr. Johnson then went on:

Is it to teach the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg? Not at all. It is to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as found in those writings; and if there are some of those writings not liked, that contain other than the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, the giving of a bequest for the purpose of promulgating and teaching those doctrines, does not require the doing of anything in any way, shape or form, immoral. And therefore the first branch of inquiry in this case is not, what did Emanuel Swedenborg write, but what was the doctrine of the Church which, after the education of the ministers, was to be taught by the ministers so educated. The doctrines of that church were to be found in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and consequently it is only with the education which promulgates the doctrine with which we have to deal.

He then turned to the second branch of inquiry, namely, whether the object to be accomplished is a violation of the law of the land. Premising a reference to that principle of the law which does not condemn, but which makes an assumption and presumption in favor of what is right, he continued that the inquiry would be helped by showing the character of Swedenborg.

A Church founded by a man recognized as one desirous of striking down what is generally accepted as pure and good, would naturally be scrutinized with suspicion. But how was Swedenborg regarded by those who stand in the world as exponents of what is pure and moral? And how, from that man, could anything proceed which is held to be immoral? Mr. Johnson dwelt at length on this topic, quoting encomiums of Swedenborg by divines, philosophers, historians, and others,men who have not looked into a piece of the book, have not, upon five or six lines condemned the whole system of writings, but who have studied the subject.

Granting that the doctrine was wrong, which says that, where there are two evils, the lesser should be pursued rather than the greater, still the Church was not to be stricken down because of a five-line statement in one book, in an author who has written twenty-seven books on theology; the system must be looked at as a whole.

What was the primary, the great object of this man? We may not believe in his religious doctrines,... but under the Constitution of the United States every man has the right to worship God according to his own principles, and he is not to be condemned in that worship because I may take a different view of it. Because I may think that God is the leading figure of the Trinity and not Christ, I cannot condemn another man who stands for the principles of an over-ruling God, but finds him in the Christ. All that, is of difference of opinion. Differences of opinion keep the world alive, for it rusts when all men agree in all things.

Mr. Johnson then took up Judge Sharswoods dictum in the infidel case, that if the primary object of the trusts of the will is to disseminate infidel views or to attack the popular religion of the country the trust would be declared void. (See page 239.)

That was spoken by one of the most rigid religionists belonging to one of the most rigid churches in America, the Presbyterian; but what he said was, not if you find a little something which you condemn, but if the primary object of the charity is the dissemination of irreligion and bad morals.

Would anybody pretend that the primary object of this Church is to do that thing, in view of what I am going to refer to about the acceptation of the thing itself? But under any circumstances is the primary object of the Church of the New Jerusalem, does anybody say it is, to endeavor to coax people into concubinage? The primary object, as would be gathered if your Honor had before you the volumes of his theology,--the primary object was to make the world better, to inculcate high morals and high truth, and to induce men to live better.... That being his primary object, you cannot, because there is some, possibly a little portion of his writings that you do not like, say that the purpose of the bequest is to promote irreligion...

The purpose of that book [CONJUGIAL LOVE] is to impress upon everyone who reads it that the greatest good of existence in a social relation is the conjugial relation, and the doing of nothing that will other than make that relation as pure as it is possible to make it. That is the object of that book. It has, indeed, a few pages, some five pages, that speak of a contrary character, that some men have a character so irrepressible in its vicious tendencies that there is bound to be some outbreak, that that man may express his preference for that state of affairs in which, because of the irrepressible character of human nature, there has to be some evil result, that it is better that that evil should be limited and restricted, and that they should do the lesser evil of two evils. You wont find in those passages any statement of any sort or kind that it is well to do any such thing. You will not find that he advises it to be done. On the contrary he pleads for the other and better life. He says that in order that that better life may be regained it is better that you should temporize with certain things; that you should not condemn the ignorant, that you do not make men good by ignoring the evil that is in the world, that the way to deal with evil is to recognize it, and when it is irrepressible, to deal with it in such a way as to make the least ill to society, and the least ill to men, and that is the purport of that book. Some of the best men that have ever lived, some of the best men that do live, believe that it is far better to recognize the fact that there is evil of that kind, and instead of having that evil break out as it does in ... some out-of-the way places where there are not the manifestations of that sort of life,--instead of allowing it to break out that way to the destruction of human beings,--better put it in one place, as you will put men in a state of plague into the pest house, and concentrate them there, and burn the pest out,--better there than disseminate it through the community, and submit the whole to great danger.

And because men ... take that view are they to be condemned, and those who believe with them to be stigmatized as men who are teaching immorality and licentiousness, when some of the most important commissions that have sat upon the social evil, have reached the conclusion that you would better license certain things, and so keep it repressed, than to make it irrepressible because there is no safety valve of any sort or kind for it?

But let us see whether he advises it or whether, because he recognizes that it is better, under certain circumstances, to have dealings with women who are not in any way to be injured by it,--better to recognize its existence and minimize it; or whether he thinks it well for men to do those things.

Mr. Johnson then read the whole of TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, No. 313, on which he commented, that this man, who speaks even of the lust that is not gratified as being within the commandment, was the man, who, because he thinks it better to recognize an evil, and keep it in check is to have all his theological writings condemned. He read also the first part of TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, No. 316, and DOCTRINE OF LIFE, Nos. 74 and 78, to the same effect, and continued:

Now those are the writings, those are the theological writings of this man, in which be announces in the broadest way his unmeasured condemnation, and declares the unmeasured spiritual condemnation of a man who does those very things, he is supposed to be immoral, because he recognized them. Say what we will, if we could reform the world by what we say, what a pure world we would have. Because he recognized that you cannot make a world good by telling it to be good, but you must endeavor to make it as good as you can by repressing it to the extent you can within the limits which are possible. And this very book which has been condemned on page 68 contains this thing:

Here Mr. Johnson read from CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 68, on the excellence of the delights of conjugial love.

That is the theory upon which the book is built up....

Now with regard to those writings,--is there anything taught in that book which inculcated immorality? Your Honor has reported that this is a Church in which every man makes his own interpretation upon doctrine; therefore, if there are two meanings of which the thing is capable, you are not to suppose that it is going to be interpreted according to the bad meaning.

He then quoted at same length from the testimony of Mr. Doering that there is no authoritative body to determine the doctrine of the Church (page 153); and from the testimony of Messrs. Worcester (page 191), Sewall (page 192) and McGeorge (page 199) that, previous to 1879 it was never the doctrine of the New Jerusalem Church that intercourse between man and woman outside of the marriage state was sinless; and continued:

Now let us read the very thing which is picked out its being condemned, and that is a page in which he says: Concubinage, apart from the wife, when it is engaged in from legitimate, just and truly weighty causes, is not unlawful.

Now, as I said before, they dont say it ought to be indulged in; on the contrary, it teaches and says that it is bound to injure in the end, the man; but, dealing with the evils that will result to the State if there is no amelioration of the evil, he simply says that it is not unlawful. It is a vastly different thing to state a proposition of fact, or to endeavor to lead a great crusade in the way of promulgating a doctrine; but let us look at that it is not unlawful.

Who wrote that book, and where was it written? It was written about the middle of the eighteenth century, over one hundred and fifty years ago, in Sweden; and the simple proposition is that after he has dealt with the spiritual side of it by way of condemnation, and dealing with another side of it, he says it is not unlawful if for those causes. Has your Honor, with the testimony before you, any right to say that it was not a statement of fact; for the man stated that in Sweden in the year 1750 a certain thing was not then unlawful? Is that to be held against this Church in the year 1908 as promulgating a doctrine in violation of the laws?

A mere statement of a thing is not unlawful; it is to be judged as to what is true by reference to the laws. Do we know that it was not within the law of Sweden to do that very thing in Sweden? and if it becomes thereafter unlawful, or if there is a country in which it is unlawful, because a man has stated that of it concerning another age and another country, is that to be held up against him, and against those who believe in his theological doctrines, as teaching some doctrine that violates the law of the land? If it becomes afterwards unlawful, if there had been a change in the law at that time, and a new edition of his book published after a change of that law, in all human probability he would have stated it to be no longer lawful.

But this book goes charged today on account of the decisions of almost a hundred and fifty years ago. A new decision comes or a new statute comes, and all is altered. Am I to be condemned for stating what was the law at the time, correctly stating it was right at the time I stated it?*

* The argument involves that the laws of Sweden recognized concubinage only when entered into from the legitimate, just, and truly weighty causes laid down by Swedenborg. Compare Mr. McGeorges explanation (pp. 272, 284, 287; Mr. Worcesters, p. 421; Mr. Whiteheads, p. 423; the General Conventions, p. 430). See also p. 510.

You may boil it all down to five lines which you condemn, and it comes down to a statement that a man, speaking at that time, says that it is not unlawful under those circumstances for a man to keep a concubine. He did not sap you should do it, but, on the contrary, said, from the spiritual point of view, he should not. How can you say that that legacy, given to teach the doctrines of the Church of the New Jerusalem, is a. legacy given for the propagation of immorality?... For the first time in history is a case in which a Church recognized as one of the established churches of the Union, in a Union whose Constitution gives the fullest religious liberty, coming here and telling you, We do not propagate, and from time immemorial have not knowingly propagated any immoral doctrines, telling you that we do not think the book to be a book of theology; that the doctrines do not involve it; we do not teach it; that the Church is condemned to go without the gift because it is a church whose education and whose principles are contrary to morals and the law.

Argument by Mr. Weill.

MR. WEILL, who followed Mr. Johnson, argued closely on the line of the Academy brief. His speech extended into the afternoon session, and concluded as follows:

See Summary of Brief, p. 309.

The practices in this case are not attacked. Not a word has been said about them. There was an attempt to attack the teachings of the Academy, but that was not followed up, and it resolved itself into an attack upon the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. There was nothing said, however, no testimony in the case, no charge or counter-charge, that there is any exception taken to wrongful practices under the doctrines contained in this book, and, as we contend, there is no authority given in this book for any wrongful objects. Its purpose is not illegal....

I ask that the Court reconsider this case. I appeal, not only in the name of one who has not been mentioned here, Mr. Kramph, who, by this Courts decision, is made sponsor for immoral books; but on behalf of the Academy and of the New Church in general, and I ask your Honor, with all the earnestness of which I am capable, to read the book CONJUGIAL LOVE, from first to last; to read the paper which we have handed to your Honor written by Mr. Acton dealing with the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE,* and I am confident that our exceptions will be sustained.

* This paper, which was a part of the brief handed by Counsel for the Academy, is given in full in Part VI, p. 471.

Argument for the Heirs.

Mr. Weill was followed by MR. CHARLES G. BAKER, on behalf of the heirs.

Mr. Baker explained that it was not the desire of the heirs to attack their grandfathers religious views or doctrines; but they felt under the necessity of calling to the attention of this Court, wherein the doctrines of Swedenborg as presented at this time, and as presented to the world for the last one hundred and fifty years, go against the law. He differed from Mr. Johnson as to the purpose of the bequest. The fund was clearly given to endow a university which should teach all the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. It made no mention of the General Convention, nor did it mention the General Church.

The Declaration of the General Church was referred to as manifestly having the sole purpose of bringing squarely before the Court the stand that the Academy would take in this controversy.

Mr. Baker then addressed himself to the claim made by the Academy. The location of the institution would of itself bar their claim, but he passed this by because it had been agreed upon by all counsel in the case, that the main and only topic for the Court to pass upon, was as to the interpretation of the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg, and particularly CONJUGIAL LOVE.

He noted that of all Swedenborgs works, CONJUGIAL LOVE alone was in evidence, together with extracts from the DOCTRINE OF LIFE, written immediately before, and the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, which followed CONJUGIAL LOVE. In both of these works Swedenborg referred to CONJUGIAL LOVE as the book where he incorporated his views on the subject of adultery and fornication and concubinage.

The Court was not required to consider any other of Swedenborgs works. The only question before the Court was as to whether the doctrine set forth in CONJUGIAL LOVE is contrary to the established law, or whether it is not.

Mr. Baker contradicted the position taken by the two gentlemen who had preceded him that the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE was a moral rather than a theological work, by lengthy quotations from the testimony of Mr. Doering, as to Mr. Kramphs understanding of the doctrine (page 164); that all New Churchmen believe that Swedenborg was inspired (page 176); and as to the cause of secession from the General Convention (page 174). He also cited the testimony of Mr. Seward, showing that the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE was a theological work (page 197).

There has not been one word of evidence, and there has not been any intimation before the hearing heard this day, that these books were considered in any other light but as theological works, and that while possibly they had been repudiated to a certain extent, they both considered them to be Divinely inspired, and that they ranked in the same position as did all the works and doctrines of Swedenborg.

Moreover, he added, it was admitted that the Academy taught CONJUGIAL LOVE.

Turning then to the Trustees, he noted that in the first arguments their Counsel had

called upon, you might say, holy Heaven to look down upon us with horror that a formal member of this bar, the senior Counsel for the Academy, should have the temerity in this Court to coincide with the doctrine as set forth in the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE. That doctrine was assailed, not by the heirs, but by the Trustees. That feature was entirely developed by the claimants themselves; first forced by the Academy, and subsequently it has been criticized by the Trustees in their defense.

Now, if the Court please, it was startling, after realizing the position assumed by the Trustees at the time of the taking of the testimony, to find among their exceptions the very point which they urged most strongly upon the Court at that time; and that was, that they asked the Court that if the Academy did teach the doctrines as laid down in the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE, and that if the Academy did hold out and did support that doctrine, that they were contrary to the law, both the common and the statute law of the Commonwealth, and that therefore this devise was void. (See p. 190.)

In filing their exceptions they come into the Court and ask the Court for an exception against that which in argument they urged the Court to find. The Court will find exceptions 17 and 18 both based on these particular points. (See p. 243.)

(Boiled down, the exceptions amounted to this one question of the doctrines of Swedenborg as laid down in the one book that was before the Court.) They except on the ground that there is nothing to show that the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg are anything but an interpretation of the Word of God found in the Bible. (Trustees exception No. 12, p. 242.) This excerpt [from the Declaration of the General Church] set forth that these Writings are the Word of God for the New Church, not the Bible, or any other boob, but those Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg--all the Writings are the Word of God for the New Church, Divinely inspired, and Divinely authoritative throughout, and thus contain in them no human element of fallacy or error.

Quoting further from the Declaration, Mr. Baker read the summary of CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 459 (there seems to be no other refuge, etc.), and of the chapter on Concubinage; the final paragraph of the Declaration; and CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 472, * (on the real weighty causes, etc.). He then continued:

* The speaker was reading from the Declaration, as copied in the Courts decree, where it is followed by CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 472.

Is there any Court in this Commonwealth that would accept as a defense of a man held before it for adultery that fact that his wife had become aged or infirm or disabled and who, for that or some other reason, was unable to pay the connubial debt? ...

These teachings are put forward by the Academy; they are a part of their own curriculum; they are published; publication is necessary for their purpose; they make no effort to conceal them; they brought them before this Court and exhibited them as one of the fundamental foundations of their organization, the Academy, and they make no denial of them.

Mr. Baker then read from two Pennsylvania cases, in one of which, the Updegraph case, the defendant society was charged with blasphemy. Here the Court had said:

That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity and indecency in this city, I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice and a school of profanation to equip young men for the penitentiary and young women for the brothel.

It was not the intention of the heirs to say that the gentlemen who conduct the Academy, or who represent the Trustees, were treating it with levity or scurrility. They did not censure them, nor criticize them, but they did say that the doctrines that they promulgated were unlawful; they would not say that they were immoral.

We do not attempt to say that the sole object of the Academy, which is now established, or the sole object of the Academy which is now in contemplation by the Trustees, is the insinuation of the doctrine of conjugial love; but we do say that this doctrine as laid down and taught by the present Academy, whether it be taught in the other Academy we do not know, bat as taught in the present Academy derogates the present common and statute laws.

Mr. Baker then noted the exception (page 243 [14]) that the Court had not considered all Swedenborgs works. Although they had been given the greatest latitude, yet neither of the claimants had introduced any other works except that of CONJUGIAL LOVE and excerpts from two other books, nor had they made any effort to show that CONJUGIAL LOVE was a moral and not a theological work.

He then read Mr. Coyles offer to prove that CONJUGIAL LOVE was not a theological work, and was not taught by the Church of the New Jerusalem of the United States of America, that it is pot the teaching of the New Jerusalem as permitting the carnal intercourse of the sexes outside of the marriage state under any circumstances.

The Court had said that that would prove that there are different interpretations of the Writings and added: I will treat that offer as if it had been made, and answered in the negative--that they do not teach that in the General Convention.*

* See p. 181.

Mr. Keller here interrupted: That eliminated all necessity for proof. To this Mr. Baker answered that the offer had been objected to. Mr. Coyle noted that it had been objected to as irrelevant.

Mr. Coyles meaning seems to have been that only its relevancy, not its truth had been objected to. This, however, is not the fact, as may be seen from Mr. Hensels words: I do not concede this to be the fact. Even if he would so testify, it would not be relevant evidence.

Mr. Baker noted that the offer had been presented as to be proved by Mr. Seward, and Mr. Seward had contradicted that offer in the testimony where he said that the society of which he had been President, publishes and advertises CONJUGIAL LOVE as a theological work. (See page 187).

Mr. Keller answered that that society was not the General Convention; and he was supported by Mr. Coyle, who added, We prove that it was another organization Mr. Baker was content to leave the matter to the Court.

----------

The argument for the heirs was concluded by Mr. Appel. The work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, he said, must be held up to the mirror of the laws, and it made no difference whether or not it was a book on morals.

But it seems to me very peculiar that a writing which is introduced by this, I may say poetical, beautiful vision of marriage in Heaven, and which follows out throughout the connection of the Church and the Lord, as the highest type of marriage, and which is founded on this vision, and contains these visions given from the Lord, that this book should be anything else than an inspired book, and if inspired, then it must be a theological book.

MR. MCGEORGE: No! No!

MR. APPEL: It has been said here that this book is non-essential. There is absolutely nothing before the Court to decide what the Swedenborgian religion is, except the boob on CONJUGIAL LOVE and the two excerpts from the DOCTRINE OF LIFE, and the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. The Council of Ministers of the General Convention... say that they have no authority to bind the general body of New Churchmen by any report. Nevertheless these Trustees have presented those reports, and for the purposes of this case we must consider that they are essential in their individual judgment. I refer to the one of 1879, and the other of 1903: That all impurity is unlawful, and to be abhorred or not allowable; and present as sanction for that law two excerpts.... They seek to show that those two excerpts show that the doctrine of purity of life and this work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, and especially what is contained in the Second Part, cannot stand together; and that this work, or this teaching, would be immoral. In that respect they do not teach all the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, whether they are theological or whether they are moral, and if the establishment of such a church wan left in their hands, they would not use this book.

It has also been brought to the attention of the Court that this book is not an essential of theology. If this book is not an essential of theology, why has so much been made of this book? Why has it been brought forward? Mr. Johnson this morning was, I think, somewhat mistaken when he said that nothing had been said that this book had not been attacked before. I hold in my hand a book
to read for the purpose of showing how essential this book is,... and at the same time I wish to show the channels some of the teachings of that CONJUGIAL LOVE have worked into.

The book, he explained, was LAWS OF ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CONJUGIAL, by a professor of the New Academy. He then read extracts from this work (Introduction, page 20), showing that the teachings in question had been denied and must be defended.

This work [CONJUGIAL LOVE] is an essential (he continued); it is not subordinate. This doctrine is not confined to fifteen lines on a couple of pages, but the doctrine and the teaching that is found on those pages is bound to permeate and have effect on the whole welfare of the Church, just as a little leaven put into the meal will leaven the whole.

Now in the matter of expounding this doctrine ... let it be known that there are two extremes, one of which is conjugial, the other scortatory love; that between them there is an intermediate which may be called unmoral, not in the sense of being immoral or moral, but it is moral so far as it looks to the preservation of the conjugial, and immoral so far as it looks to the other branch, scortatory love or adultery.

He then read portions of CONJUGIAL LOVE, 423, 449, 450, 452, 459 and 460, as quoted in LAWS OF ORDER. In the last number he could see only one meaning, that if two people cannot he married, before marriage they can come together, can have carnal connection, provided it leads up to the marriage state.

After reading on Concubinage, from CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 467, he continued:

A great deal was made this morning in the argument by Mr. Johnson, on that point, is not unlawful; and he said, ... that it was applicable to conditions at that time, conditions that were, I understand, prevalent in Sweden; and I believe that such is the teaching of the General Convention. But, on the other hand, there is a considerable body of New Churchmen of the Academy, who deny that, and read into the plain interpretation of unlawful, that [it] would apply to the laws now, or hereafter or before, and to all laws, either to the Divine law, or to the law of the State. This is derived, it is urged, from a Divine, an inspired source, and the sanction of the Divine law must be given to this. Therefore this part would not be opposed either to the Divine law or to the civil law.

In connection with CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 468, as to the legitimate causes of this concubinage, Mr. Appel called attention to page 191, hut before reading, he premised that the author went on to show that the Church has not been growing, due to marriages outside of the Church; and Swedenborg in this book expressly states that marriages outside of this Church are unlawful. They do not deal with marriage in the sense of a civil contract, bat they have a special
significance beyond that. Now after deploring the small number of people that come into the Church, the doctrine sets forth this reason, and the answer, and I understand the Academy only allow marriage within their own body of the Church (reading):

Marriages between those who are of a different religion are unlawful (illicita), because there is not a conjunction of similar good and truth in the interiors.

But, right after that,

Concubinage separate from the wife, when from legitimate, just and truly serious causes, is not unlawful (non sit illicitus). [LAWS OF ORDER, p. 181.]

The only thing I can get from that, interpreting the two together, is that if a man, a member of the New Jerusalem Church, would marry one not a member of the New Jerusalem Church, it might lead to such a condition of affairs, because there is not a union of similar good and truth in the interiors, that he may be justified in keeping a mistress or a concubine.

Mr. Appel then read from CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 474-5, on Concubinage, after which he read front pages 89, 90, 93, 94 and 95, to show the controversy raging around CONJUGIAL LOVE from the beginning. Just the negative (he said) of what is here contended. He then read from page 98 as to the position of the Academy; from page 134 as to the duty of the men of the New Church;* and from pages 150 and 168 to the same effect. All these passages were offered

* See p. 454.

to show what have been the results of the book; how these few passages have been amplified, and the language has become a storm center of New Church religious controversy. I respectfully maintain that when you hold up the mirror of the laws to these pages, and to this work which followed that work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, you will find that that doctrine is not in accordance with the laws of Pennsylvania, and that the exceptions will be dismissed.

Argument by Mr. Keller.

Mr. Appel was followed by Mr. Keller, who appeared, nominally, to argue for the collateral inheritance tax, but whose argument was almost entirely for the McGeorge Trustees.

After saying there would have been no trouble, had the Court followed the plain language of the will, which was that the fund should be turned over to certain Trustees with an active purpose to endow a university, he went on: If the Academy had not put in their claim, he had no doubt but that the fund would have been awarded to the Trustees who had legally succeeded the original Trustees. There was nothing in the contention that the Trustees had not made a visible organization, for the law does not suppose that people will do a thing not yet needing to be done, and there was no reason to organize and to form a committee of active Trustees until there was an active fund to take charge of. But the succession was undoubtedly kept up. Moreover, the Trustees had been legally recognized by the Court, and by the parties here, and therefore Mr. Keller brushed aside any question as to their competency to receive the trust.

The next question was whether the Trustees were an active or a passive trust. He submitted that, under the will, they were appointed to endow a school under a charter legally obtained. It must be understood that they are to have direction of the getting of that charter. If not, a Mennonite Church or a Presbyterian Church, North or South, might apply. It would be very unlikely for a person to appoint Trustees to endow a university to teach the doctrine of the Episcopal Church, and to so provide that they should have no part in saying who should obtain that charter, and have direction of that university.

The orderly course for the Court to have pursued would have been to have given the fund to the people named in the will, and their successors. That would have obviated the whole thing; but the Academy came in and demanded that we should turn the fund over to them because they supplied the very things necessary that were called for by this bequest,--a university teaching the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down by the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg, and as understood at the time the testator wrote his Will, and consequently not only the Trustees, but the heirs, objected to the Academy on the ground that they should not receive it because they were teaching practices that were immoral, immoral doctrine.

Here the speaker quoted Mr. Doerings testimony in answer to Mr. Appel (see page 171), after which he continued:

The claim of the Academy was attacked on two grounds: first that they do not teach the doctrines of the Church of the New Jerusalem. We have all been led astray by Mr. Weills remarks to the effect that the bequest was given for the purpose of teaching the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg. It was given to teach the doctrines of the Church of the New Jerusalem. That is what I pointed out at the time the testimony was taken (see p. 167). It is not what Mr. Weill is speaking about, about the teaching of Ralph Waldo Emerson, or this person or that,--that is not this case. It is to teach the doctrines of a church founded upon the writings of a man. That is what it was.

The reason why the Academy was not entitled to receive this fund were:

First, because the Trustees had the active duty of incorporating the Society.

Second, because the Academy did not teach the doctrines of the Church of the New Jerusalem as founded, laid down by Emanuel Swedenborg, as understood by the testator at the time he wrote his Will. Third, because some of the teachings, the plain teachings of the Academy were contrary to the moral laws of the land.

The book from which Mr. Appel has just read shows that previous to the secession of 1879 the Academy did not teach the doctrine of conjugial love as a constituent part of the Church. That book [LAWS of ORDER] speaks of it as being weak-kneed previously, and that the Academy taught certain things in contradistinction to the General Convention; that the General Convention was the old body,* and this testimony shows that the Academy was a new body that seceded. The testimony of Mr. Doering and of this book is testimony showing that the Academy or the General Church teach that CONJUGIAL LOVE is a. part of the theological works of Emanuel Swedenborg and a fundamental doctrine of Swedenborg. But this very book itself [LAWS OF ORDER] shows that it was only since 1879, that a Church of Swedenborg has come out boldly and said, Our position is founded on this book, as a part, a constituent part.

This very book shows that before 1879, at the time this Will was written, the General Convention, from which the General Church seceded, did not teach that doctrine. That on the contrary they held that it was not a constituent part of the Church, that it was a moral work, not a religious work, and that therefore the Church was not bound by it.

* See LAWS OF ORDER, P. 95.

The Court had said that it could not give the fund to the Academy because it teaches the doctrines of Swedenborg, which are immoral.

Then your Honor turned around and said, I cannot award to the trustees because they do not teach all the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg. That is where you are in error. The bequest was not to found a university which shall teach the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg.

THE COURT: What are the words of the will?

MR. KELLER: For universal New Church education in these United States and for the education of New Church ministers who shall teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg. That is what the gift is, your Honor. Why did not they limit it to the theological works? Because a Church is supposed to teach nothing but the theological doctrines. Mr. Emanuel Swedenborg wrote seventy-nine books on a wide diversity of subjects. Is it to be pretended that they must teach his books on Chemistry, Cosmogony, on Philosophy, or on any one of the other dozen subjects upon which he wrote? Not at all! The Church is to teach his theological writings, and he did not need to say theological writings. I do not say female woman. When I say woman, it covers it all, and when I say a Church founded on the doctrines of a man, I do not need to teach any other kind of writings, only the writings pertaining to the Church, and that is the theological writings.

Who is the best judge of the book, whether theological or not? who is a better judge than Emanuel Swedenborg himself? Emanuel Swedenborg said, It is not a theological work, but a book on morals. If he was inspired, he was inspired in that as well as in other things. Those are Emanuel Swedenborgs words. This is a book of morals. A minister may consider in his heart that it is better to have a tenderloin district rather than to have it break out all over, bat he does not teach it as a matter of theology, but mere morals. That is the reason why I called your Honors attention during the trial, twice, when they only said that they should teach the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. We are not compelled to teach all the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. We are only compelled in this Church to teach the doctrines of the New Church which is founded on the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and the Church is not founded on anything but the theological writings....

If your Honor eliminates the Academy and says the Academy is not competent to take the fund on account of its teaching a book which is immoral,--and now they want to bring into the question not only Swedenborg but Emanuel Odhner. Nobody claims that he is inspired; nobody has made such a claim as that. The gentleman has based his whole claim on this book and the writings of a mere man explaining the book....

Does anybody mean to say that the General Convention is not the Church of the New Jerusalem, or is not a branch of it, and if they teach that branch of it, why are they not entitled to the fund,--the Trustees, I mean,--to found a university and carry out the purposes of the Will. Is there anything immoral in that, and will your Honor say that because they do not teach, as they clearly do not,--the extract which the gentleman read, amounts only to this, that the American Swedenborg Printing and Publication Society, a publishing society, prints the book, not that the General Convention holds it as a theological work. You must take what you said that you would consider it to prove. Your Honor would not let us go into it. If that is done,--if we show that we do not teach that as a part of the fundamental doctrine of the Church, because Swedenborg said it is not,--if it be taught as a doctrine of morals, it is not a work of theology. And I might as well hold that all the seventy books of Geography, Philosophy, and so on should be taught as well as theology, as that this should be taught as a book of theology.

Mr. Keller concluded with a short argument for the collateral inheritance tax. This ended the arguments for the day.

----------

The conclusion of argument by Counsel was held on the afternoon of December 23, 1909. It was agreed that Mr. McGeorge should address the Court on the doctrinal issue, to be followed by Mr. Coyle, and that Mr. Hensel should close.

Mr. McGeorges speech differs very little in effect from his typewritten brief, except that it did not cover so much ground. We therefore omit the speech and give in its place a summary of the brief itself, indicating in the proper places whatever additions were made in oral argument.

This Brief stands in a different category from the pleas of Counsel. It is professedly a doctrinal argument, and is but little dealt with or answered by opposing lawyers. No detailed consideration is here attempted. Attention is merely called to the following assumptions, which are many times repeated, as though reiteration were proof.

1. The assumption that the Academy teaches some monstrous doctrine, too dreadful for more than vague insinuation, which the Brief is careful to refrain from defining.

2. The assumption that the lower Court outlawed the Doctrines of the New Church because of this doctrine of the Academy.

3. The assumption that from the beginning to the end of it [CONJUGIAL LOVE], a man is never told what he should do or what he should refrain from doing (see p. 279), i. e., that CONJUGIAL LOVE lays down no laws of life.

The Brief repeatedly draws conclusions which the passages, liberally quoted from the Writings of Swedenborg, fail to sustain; the author contradicts the teachings of his own selected quotations, the interpretations of his own associates, and even himself.

Brief by Mr. McGeorge.

Mr. McGeorge opened by saying that the case was no longer one merely of property, but one affecting a whole system of theology and the moral character of all the members of a church organization, and the infinitely greater number in all churches and throughout the whole world of those who believe in, who guide their lives by, and who more or less inculcate the teachings that have fallen under the condemnation of the judgment.

Then follow several pages of quotations from divines, philosophers, poets, novelists, and others.

Taking up the words that The Book, CONJUGIAL LOVE, does not treat of theology, but chiefly of morals, Mr. McGeorge notes the marked difference in its style from the style of his avowedly theological books.

The most remarkable and suggestive circumstance is that this was the first of his books published since his call by the Lord to which he subscribed his name as author, and in this way he appealed to the scientific world, which would gladly receive anything that this incomparably greatest scientist of his day would write.* ... He wrote this valuable book,... for a very different Purpose from that which inspired his purely doctrinal works.... It is at once conceded at this point, however, that when the statement of an interested witness construing certain detached passages of a book, every part of which is characterized by its author to be all concerning the insanities of adulterous love, is accepted as evidence that the things thus spoken of are right and proper to be practiced by Christian men, and should be taught to boys and young men preparing for the ministry, instead of seeing what the Book itself taught, no other decision than the one pronounced could be given. Before this judgment is made final, however, we ask that the only real proper evidence, which is the book itself, should be heard in its own defense.

* See pp. 269, 286-7 for more on this point.

The work on CONJUGIAL LOVE had been offered in evidence,--and this, not by the Trustees, but by the Academy (see p. 178). The Trustees confined their doctrinal offer to the Report of 1879, that of 1903, an excerpt from DOCTRINE OF LIFE, and another from TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. Moreover, the decision of the Court was explicitly directed against Swedenborgs teaching in CONJUGIAL LOVE itself, and not against any statement by the Academy (see the whole decision, p. 234, and especially p. 240).

Mr. McGeorge then considers some of the positive teachings of Swedenborg as laid down in his distinctively theological works, and especially his teaching as to the binding effect of the Commandments, particularly the Commandment about adultery. He quotes TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Nos. 262, 283, 329, 313, 316; DOCTRINE OF LIFE, NOS. 111, 74, and 76-78, all given in full, and continues:

These are the direct teachings on this subject, where the main question is under discussion, and they are not merely obiter dicta.... The true principle of construction is to take all that is said or taught on any particular subject, and not merely detached fragments out of their proper connection, and if there seem to be any contradictions, to reconcile these if possible, and if not, to determine which is the governing principle, and which the obiter dicta.

In enabling us to do this in this particular ease it is absolutely necessary to take note of a controlling doctrine laid down by Swedenborg in one of his most important and essentially doctrinal works, entitled THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW JERUSALEM CONCERNING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE, which does not contain the observations of a Swede,* but is given as a part of the Doctrine of the Lords New Church, as to which Swedenborg says that when stating this Doctrine he was not permitted to receive instruction even from the highest angels, but only from the Lord alone.

* Compare pp. 270, 282, 283, 286, 287, where the several expressions Divine Revelation and full of Divine things are applied to these Observations of a Swede.

Nos. 50, 55 and 56 of this work are then given in full as teaching that the doctrine of the Church its to be drawn from the sense of the letter of the Word, and to be confirmed by it.

It follows as a necessary corollary to this teaching that if anything should appear to be taught by Swedenborg in any part of his Writings contrary to the plain teaching of the letter of the Word, it is not and must not be accepted as doctrine. And as the inferences drawn by the Academy from the passages cited by them are directly contrary to the plain teachings of the Word, under this rule laid down by Swedenborg, they have no right or authority to teach what they testified, and which the Court properly decides to be immoral.

On CONJUGIAL LOVE in this connection see p. 280.

It was CONJUGIAL LOVE and not any interpretation that was condemned. See note, p. 285.

Mr. McGeorge then notes the word, conjugial, as embodying a new concept of a pure heavenly love,... a concept which has been seized upon by such poets as Tennyson and the Brownings, and forms the keynote of their most heavenly music.

He then reviews CONJUGIAL LOVE from Chapter Four on, reciting nearly all the propositions of the various chapters. The first three chapters are omitted, but it is noted that they are utterly repugnant to the idea that what is revealed in the second part of the book, especially in the chapters on Fornication and Concubinage, are intended as rules of life to be followed or acted upon by men and women here.

Such unchaste relations were called by Swedenborg Extra-conjugial, and towards extra-conjugial love the angels are cold in the whole body. Connecting this with the teaching that the True Christian Church on earth makes one with the New Christian Heaven, Mr. McGeorge adds:

It is inconceivable that he should teach that New Churchmen are privileged or allowed or could live in a relationship subversive of all true order as it exists in the Church on earth and in Heaven--a relationship which he characterizes as bestial, and the mere thought of which would produce the coldness and distress he speaks about among the angels of that Heaven which is formed from those of the New Church.... He nowhere says that a man who engages in such practices will be saved, or, what is the same thing, that real conjugial love will be kept alive in his heart. He only states that under certain extenuating circumstances this may be possible.

Taking up the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE, Mr. McGeorge notes that if Swedenborg here advises or approves of immoral practices,

Then he must approve and commend what he characterizes as insanities, despite the fact that Henry James, the great American philosophical writer, has testified, Emanuel Swedenborg has the saltest and most far-reaching intellect this age has known. Such an idea is almost inconceivable.

The title, The Insane Delights of Scortatory Love, is referred to as a notice posted on the gate through which we must pass before we get to this book at all. It is all, so far as man is concerned, insanity; it is all about adulterous love.

The brief then notes that, while in general by the word adultery, Swedenborg comprehends every and all forms, both light and grievous, of the violation of the Seventh Commandment, yet in the opening chapter of the Second Part a technical meaning is attached to this term, which is here restricted to the most deadly forms of the evil, so deadly that all conjugial love is destroyed, and the one who is possessed and dominated by this love has passed beyond the hope of repentance.

All that is said about the milder forms of the evil at this time is that so long as they are mild, they are not this deadly evil.

The sixteen propositions of this opening chapter are then quoted, and the brief continues:

No one can predicate immorality of this chapter, and if those who use this part of the book to confirm certain things would regard the advice of Swedenborg to the two angels from the heaven of innocence, in the concluding part of No. 499, they would at least be careful not to talk of such things with the young and innocent.

The chapters on Fornication and Concubinage contained the whole difficulty, and the chapters following need not be considered, except to draw from them those extracts which show that Swedenborg in all this part of the book is not teaching theology; is not laying down laws of religion for the guidance and government of a mans life.

The fourteen propositions on the chapter on Fornication are then quoted. None of them could be denied,

unless indeed question might be made of Proposition V [With some the love of the sex cannot without harm be totally restrained]. But observe there is no advice on this subject, least of all is there any intimation that any one man is authorized or permitted to settle this question, or indeed any of these questions, for himself.... Here is no laying down laws of religion for the guidance and government of a mans life.

Emphasis is laid on the teaching, Fornication is an evil, and the brief then calls attention to the distinction between what is lighter and more grievous.

These distinctions, especially the finer and more subtle distinctions between the graver forms of the violation of the Sixth Commandment, pointed out in the latter part of this book, so strongly appealed to the intelligence of all rational men that this book is the only one that made any substantial return to Swedenborg himself on its cost, and in one of his letters to Dr. Beyer he speaks of the demand there was for this book by scientists in France, Germany and Holland.*

* Swedenborgs statements are, The book is very much in demand in Paris and in many places in Germany. Those that are at Norrkoping will be sent abroad, where there is a great demand for them, Documents, II, pp. 275, 307. Nothing is said about the demand being from scientists. See further arguments on this point, p. 286.

The point, however, that is sought to be made is that there is nothing immoral in pointing out these distinctions.

Attention is again called to the fact that while in this book a very strong distinction is made between the lust which is called fornication and that more deadly lust technically termed adultery, yet in one sense, as they are all violations of the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and as they are all grouped together in a treatise about adulterous love, they are all adulteries and are all included under that word, and are all treated of in the general principles laid down a little later on about all adulteries.

It should be noted that Mr. McGeorge translates scortatio (scortation, any sexual act outside of marriage) as adultery. Swedenborg does say, or rather imply, for a direct statement of so obvious a fact is unnecessary, that scortation includes fornication, but he nowhere says that fornication is adultery, adulterium.

No. 455 is referred to as giving the very best idea of what our author has in mind by the word fornication. It is seen to be mans natural state before he has turned definitely either to the evil or to the good. As he is looking at this subject as the Lord regards it, he makes no distinction between the intention and the act, for an intention is an act in potency.

Attention is then called to the doctrine of equilibrium, as showing that

if he will, man can put this natural state of fornication away and come into the Heavenly marriage love. Altogether, aside from what is hereafter shown about the real teaching of this book, this one statement shows that the construction put on this book by the Academy is contrary to the true teachings of Swedenborg.

Proposition XIII [That with certain men who are referred to it is possible that this desire for marriage may be preserved if the wandering love of the sex be strictly confined to one mistress] may give rise to a question, but no one can deny it who carefully considers it.

It is only a possibility and only as a sort of forlorn hope of saving to man what is really his most valuable possession. In any event, however, these concluding words should not be forgotten, But these things are not said for those who can control the surging heat of lust; nor for those who can enter into marriage as soon as they are grown to manhood; and can offer and devote the first fruits of their manly power to a wife.

Desire for marriage is the mistranslation of conjugiale. The true rendering is the conjugial.

These last words conclusively show that nothing in this chapter is intended for the guidance of any Christian today, for such a one is taught not only that he must shun all evils, but he is taught to look up to the Lord in His Divine Human, to whom all power is given in Heaven and earth,... it only remains for him to invoke the Lords help, and he can control not only the surging heat of this particular lust, but of all lusts.*

* See p. 209, where the Rev. John Worcester calls such a position practically nonsense. Cf. also p. 299, note.

Proposition XIV [That pellicacy is to be preferred to wandering lust] is undeniable as an abstract truth, but anyone reading the last few lines of No. 460 must realize what risks a man runs who engages in this practice.... For precisely the same reasons given above, however, it is seen that there is nothing in this for a Christian today.

The brief here digresses to say, what

must be said, and cannot be said too often, namely, that while the Divine revelation that is made in this book as to the origin and nature of conjugial love, and of its opposites, is in the highest degree useful and instructive, and while the latter part of the book has been in the past, and doubtless will be in the future, helpful to evil and natural men in restraining them, yet none of the permissions there treated of have any relation to Christian regenerating or spiritual men, but are only for evil and natural men, as is shown in Nos. 426 and 442, where, amongst other things, it is said that the natural man is insane in spiritual things, and especially in No. 447, that fornication is of the natural man. What is true of fornication, which is regarded a the lighter evil, is still more true of concubinage.

Cf. p. 266, where CONJUGIAL LOVE is referred to as the observations of a Swede.

The distinctively theological work, APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED, No. 936, is then quoted to show that the Christian or spiritual man is able to obey the Commandments.

Mr. McGeorge then sums up the chapter on Fornication as consisting of

abstract propositions that no one can possibly gainsay, and that nowhere is there any advice or direction that men should do or not do any of the things therein referred to, and the only implication of immorality could arise from the idea that these things are stated with the intention of directing or inducing men to do or not to do the things therein referred to. If then it can be shown that this implication does not arise, but, on the contrary, in this very book it is made very clear that no man is allowed or has the right to apply these things in his own ease, but, on the contrary, is expressly precluded from doing so, and is told that the whole matter is entirely outside of and beyond the province of his judgment, then the ban of immorality should be raised as to this chapter.

There is one thing, however, about this evil of fornication that should not be forgotten. While Swedenborg apparently speaks of it as a very light evil, it is only to be so regarded so long as it remains simply as the uncertain and undetermined natural state of man as to the love of sex. If a man leaves this state of equilibrium and inclines toward actual evil, if only the milder forms of this evil, and becomes as it were set in this inclination, all the innocency of this natural state passes away, and a man, while perhaps only a fornicator in outward act, may be the veriest adulterer at heart, and punishable accordingly. It is not given to anyone to suppose that he may continue in this sin and preserve his innocency. He may fall in weakness or ignorance, but unless he sincerely repents and puts this evil out of his life, he becomes an adulterer in its grievous sense, and is liable to all the pains and penalties that attach to this deadly evil.

We now come to the chapter on concubinage, and it is conceded at once that this is the most difficult to understand, and some of the statements as interpreted by the Academy are in absolute contravention of the criminal law of Pennsylvania. But that they really are is only an appearance arising from a superficial consideration of it, taking it alone by itself, and without reference to other important teachings in the same book which entirely destroy the construction placed upon it by the Academy, which construction the Court was bound to condemn.*

* See note on p. 265.

After reciting the propositions of this chapter, Mr. McGeorge adduces the words: And yet those that are in adultery can see these derivations and their distinctions, not indeed in themselves, of themselves, but when they hear them from others (No. 463), as showing:

First, that those who are spoken of, who are living in a state of concubinage, are adulterers, and, second, that they cannot see those distinctions, etc., in themselves, of themselves. This is important, because a little later on, in laying down some general principles in the chapter Concerning Adulteries and the Kinds and Degrees of Them, some things are stated that show that a man is utterly unable to decide for himself whether an evil is light or grievous, etc., that the circumstances on which these matters are decided do not come within his consciousness, and that it is utterly beyond his province to pass judgment on such things. Inasmuch as a distinction is made by Swedenborg between concubinage and that form of adultery which is the very opposite of conjugial love, except for the words above referred tot it might be held that those passages which will be cited are confined to those only who are in the very opposite of conjugial love....

Proposition V, That concubinage apart from the wife when it is engaged in for legitimate, just, and truly weighty causes, is not unlawful, is the crux of the whole question. If this is the correct teaching of the book, then whatever may be true of this matter in Sweden, of which country Swedenborg calls himself a citizen--that is, he designates himself a Swede--and whatever may be the truth about this matter in England, where he lived during the latter part of his life,... in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania concubinage as he here describes, or indeed any form of concubinage, is contrary to the criminal law, and no Court of that Commonwealth could award any funds of which it had control for the teaching of such doctrine.... But in the first place Swedenborg is not speaking of any human law; and, secondly, and what is far more important, be never does say or teach that this practice or fornication or both or either of them is or are allowable and not unlawful, in the sense that any man can so adjudge them and is free to act on this judgment in his own case.

If he had intended to say not unlawful he would have used the words which he uses in other places where he says that a thing is not unlawful, viz., non sit illegitimus, the latter word being constructed from the root word lex, legis, signifying law. As a matter of fact, the words in the Latin original sometimes translated is allowable, at other times is not unlawful, at other times is not unlawful, are non sit illicitus. The word illicitus is derived from a Latin verb which signifies to permit, being the same verb used in the most significant announcement to the New Church, beginning nunc licet.

Licitus literally means permitted or permissible, and illicitus is the negative of this.

In oral argument Mr. McGeorge here added:

It will be observed that the verb is not in the indicative or declarative mood, but in the subjunctive or hypothetical mood. If he had intended to declare that this thing is not unlawful, the words would have been non est illegitimus. Instead of that he says, sit, which means may be, and not is. But the participle is illicitus the negative of licitus, from the word meaning license, meaning, it is permitted. The literal translation of the actual words used is, may not be unpermissible.*

* This same argument is used in the Rev. J. E. Smiths pamphlet, noted on p. 424. See also p. 275. For the benefit of the unlearned reader it may be noted that according to Swedenborgs uniform practice, to which, in all the scientific and theological works, there is not a single exception, the conditional or subjunctive mood when introduced by the word Quod (that) is used in the sense of the indicative. Thus in CONJUGIAL LOVE we read, Quod amor scortatorius sit oppositus amori conjugiali. This is correctly translated, That scortatory love is opposite to conjugial love; but according to the argument in the brief, it should be rendered, That scortatory love may be opposite to conjugial love. To anyone even slightly acquainted with Swedenborg in the Latin, the argument in the brief is too ridiculous for notice. But even if it were well founded it would add nothing to the point for the support of which it is adduced. For supposing Swedenborg had said may not be unpermissible, the words would clearly teach that in some cases it actually is not unpermissible,--the very point which the brief denies that Swedenborg teaches.

With such a master of words the double negative is very suggestive. If Swedenborg hail intended to teach that under the conditions named concubinage was always permissible or allowable, he would have used the word licitus. If it was never, nor under any conditions, permissible or allowable, the word would be ilicitus. That he uses this peculiar form of non illicitus shows that there is a shade of distinction made between both of the positive statements, and the only rational explanation of this usage of the words is that this case comes under the Law of Permissions.

Mr. McGeorge then enters into an explanation of this very technical matter, quoting from ARCANA COELESTIA, Nos. 10778, 8227, 6489, and DIVINE PROVIDENCE, No. 16, after which he continues:

In the light of this instruction we see that concubinage is neither lawful allowable to man according to human or Divine law, but if there is no other way of saving a man, or of keeping alive in him a spark of the sacred fire of conjugial love, this evil may be permitted, but the judgment even as to this will only be rendered by the Lord after the death of the man....

But while this evil is said to be permitted it is nowhere commanded, not even in the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE, and as to all these things of permission we are bound to take notice of the other teaching of Swedenborg, viz., that where any evil may seem to be permitted by Divine law under certain conditions, if that evil is expressly forbidden by the civil law, which the law of the Church as laid down in Swedenborg bids us uphold, then that particular evil is actually forbidden. Thus what would be permissible and highly conducive to morality in Sweden and England at time this book was written, when the laws and conditions were so very different, is positively forbidden by the law of the Church as laid down in Swedenborg, here and at this time.

Understood in this restricted sense, this proposition does not conflict with any of the other teachings Swedenborg gives to men in his theological books on this yams subject, and an apparently irreconcilable contradiction in those writings is removed. Consequently all of these passages, especially those now to be quoted, should be taken into the most careful consideration for the purpose of ascertaining the real meaning of this doubtful Proposition V. It is said doubt it is necessarily so, but because grave doubt has been cast upon it by the construction which the Academy has placed on it.

CONTINUATION OF THE LAST JUDGMENT, No. 16, is then quoted, showing the evil state of those who, although they do not commit evils, yet think them allowable, and therefore commit them in spirit and in body too, when they can. To this Mr. McGeorge adds, This passage makes it pretty clear that most dangerous results accrue to those who believe any evil to he allowable.

Then follows a still stronger passage, stating that adulteries close heaven and open hell, and this they do so far as they are believed to be allowable, and are perceived to be more delightful than marriages.

And it is added, that in APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED, No. 1006, the word adulteries is shown to be used in its broader sense and to include fornication* and all other forms both mild and grievous.

* Let the reader read the passage itself.

In connection with the unwarranted word, allowable, ARCANA COELESTIA, No. 3246, is quoted, as

perhaps the most direct proof that Swedenborg did not teach any such doctrine as that which has been advanced by the Academy, contrary to all his direct teachings and simply on the basis of a false construction of what he did say, without taking into account the very important limitation that he places upon this and similar propositions to the effect that it is the Lord only who decides whether under all the circumstances any evil goes even beyond His permissions, or whether it is light or grievous.

The passage stated, in language that cannot he misunderstood: It is not allowable for Christians ... to take to themselves a concubine with a wife.

Non liceat, the same word as that used in C. L. 467; see above, p. 273.

Mr. McGeorge need not have gone so far afield. The same teaching is to be found in C. L. 464.

The unmistakable teaching of all Swedenborgs theological writings was that no one under any circumstances is allowed to think that he or she is free to violate any of the Commandments, and this one especially, because it leads to so many other evils. The New Churchman was taught that the Lord would not command us to do what we could not do, and that the great redemption has set men free, enabling them to resist every temptation, including that to break this particular Commandment.

If this is the doctrine, then what is the meaning of the statements that certain things are allowable, not unlawful, or not unpermissible? Who decides and renders the judgment in these cases as to whether permissible?

Without essaying any direct answer to this question, Mr. McGeorge proposes to show Swedenborgs real meaning and unmistakable teaching from the Second Part of this book on CONJUGIAL LOVE itself. He then quotes CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 485, and continues:

First, it must be seen and noted that here, as everywhere, Swedenborg insists that the civil law must be obeyed and its infraction punished, and, second, that in speaking of the various degrees of adultery Swedenborg distinctly says that these degrees are not kinds, but enter into each kind, and make its differences of more and less evil or good. And then to show that he is not only speaking of the subject-matter of this chapter, he goes on to say, Here, or as it is otherwise translated, in the present case, whether an adultery of either kind by reason of circumstances and contingencies should be accounted milder or more grievous. Consequently, the conclusions that follow pertain to every form of adultery, including fornication and concubinage.

To make this clearer, No 486 is then quoted on the subject that all evils are of the internal, and at the same time of the external man; on which the comment is made: As fornication and concubinage are evils, they are of course treated of in a discussion about all evils.

In oral argument, Mr. McGeorge dwelt on the words of this passage:

But they cannot, from the above circumstances be pronounced either blameless or culpable or be predicated and judged as mild or grievous by man.

The words by man (ab homine), he said, should be translated, by a man; (and he continued) you see it is right. It therefore cannot be pronounced either blameless or culpable, or be predicated and judged as mild or grievous by a man, because they do not appear before him. That is, these circumstances; these things which determine the quality of every mans act do not appear before the man himself, so that he can render a just judgment upon them. If we could interpret for ourselves, the decision would be to find in our own favor, but he goes on, Neither is it the province of his judgment to do so. It is none of his business in short.... The imputation is made by the Lord, and He is the one who renders these judgments, and He renders them after the mans death, and He tells the man that he is unable to decide these things, and that circumstances do not appear before him, and that the whole thing is not within the province of his judgment.

CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 487, is quoted as making it perfectly clear that the discussion and conclusion is not merely about what Swedenborg technically terms adulteries, for he is here speaking of the real quality of (every deed) and of (everything). But all question on this was removed by No. 530, where it says: The like is the case with scortations (i. e., adulteries generally), whether they are fornications, or pellicacies, or (technical) adulteries, since these are imputed. to everyone, not according to the deed, etc.

The principle laid down in this number was that only the Lord could render judgment because He knew all motives and intentions.

The man does not and cannot know these things, and therefore cannot render a true judgment, and is not expected to do so. This is no new doctrine; Moses made the very same distinction when he said: The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do on the words of this law. Deut. 29:29. The whole difficulty in this case is that the Academy has forgotten this admonition, and has confounded the secret things of God with the words of the law that men have to keep and do.

If the full import of these teachings, taken from this very liber prohibitus, was fully understood it would be seen that it settles this case,... it will be seen that the Academy in assigning it as justification for what it taught, perverted or misrepresented or misunderstood the real end and aim of the book, and by so doing misled the Court. If the book, while pointing out distinctions in the grade of the various evils and finely discriminating between them, perhaps goes farther in this respect than men in general and the criminal code do, yet if it plainly and emphatically tells a man that he is unable to make these distinctions for himself, that he has no ability or right to discriminate,... in short, if the book itself plainly teaches that no man must attempt to regulate his own life by the disclosures therein made, then certainly, whether understood or not, it cannot be predicated of such a book that it is immoral.

An even more obvious conclusion from the passages just cited was that even if Swedenborg did use the expression allowable or not unlawful, he certainly had no reference to the civil law, for he plainly states that inculpations are made by a judge according to the law;

and since man is forbidden to render judgment in his own case, and is bound to shun all evils as sins, and since the only judgments are by the Lord,--even if we are not able to understand the workings of His Providence and the processes of His Divine mind,--we may perhaps feel confident that nothing immoral will result. Prejudice had been excited against CONJUGIAL LOVE, because it had been claimed that two chapters warrant teachings that are in contravention of the criminal law of the State... The evil results of this manner of treatment of these chapters are shown not only in the judgment that has been rendered in this case, but in the fact that a similar judgment is rendered by almost everyone who, knowing what the Academy teaches as doctrine from it, is unfortunately not sufficiently familiar with the real teachings of the book to properly understand it. So that even among many New Church people this book is inscribed on the shunned Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

And yet no one unenlightened by revelation could possibly conceive of the wonderful things here told in the chapters of the Second Part of this work; no other could foretell the direful consequences of these evils here in this world. The book is one which the world needs and cannot dispense with.*

* Cf. p. 266 and note.

To show the real spirit of the work, CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 523 [Judge not, etc.] is quoted, after which Mr. McGeorge goes on:

This passage, coming as it does at the very end of the book, also conclusively proves the grievousness of fornication when confirmed. A careless reading of the book, but especially the desire to find sanction for this evil, has led to the idea that fornication is a very light offense. Heretofore it has been shown what it is that Swedenborg classifies as the light form of evil, but this shows the confirmed fornicator as being the very opposite of the consort, as opposed as the most grievous and confirmed forms of adultery are to conjugial love.

The brief then inquires into Swedenborgs meaning, when he says this hook does not treat of theology.

Theology is defined as a scientific knowledge of God and of the life which reverence and allegiance toward Him require (CENTURY DICTIONARY).

If we consult the book from one end to the other, we find that it certainly does not attempt to give us any scientific knowledge about God, indeed it gives us no knowledge about Him, except what may be inferred from the way in which He looks at the things under discussion. Swedenborgs statement so far, therefore, is seen to be absolutely true.

Does it treat of mans religious life, or, what is the same thing, of religion?... Does it treat of the subjects that form the subject-matter of the DOCTRINE OF LIFE or the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, where men are instructed, exhorted, and advised as to what they should do, and what they should refrain front doing? We have practically gone over the whole of this book and we see that from the beginning to the end of it a man is never told what he should do, or what he should refrain from doing. There is one place where the duty of parents is stated, but nowhere what a man or woman, boy or girl should do for himself or herself. If this is seen to be so, then we find that Swedenborgs statement as to what this book does not treat of is again absolutely true.

In oral argument the definition from CENTURY DICTIONARY was followed by INFLUX, No. 20, defining Theology as that God is one, and that there is a conjunction of charity and faith. After further quotations, Mr. McGeorge then said:

Theology, according to Swedenborg, is only concerned with instruction about God and our duties to Him and the neighbor. That is the religious life, or, as the dictionary has it, the life which reverence and allegiance toward God require, and these duties on mans part are all comprised in shunning his evils as sins, to the end that he may keep the Commandments.... This being so, it inevitably follows that if it is not the primary purpose of the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE to inculcate and urge men to perform these duties, that is, to shun evils and keep the Commandments, then it is true that it does not treat of theology.

The speaker then turned from this merely negative conclusion to the definition of theology as the universal doctrine of salvation (APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED, No. 14), and in this connection he said that Swedenborg

makes it very clear that doctrine must be drawn from the sense of the letter of Word, and must he confirmed by it, and thus there is no escape from this logical conclusion that if that is the only source from which doctrine is to be derived, it is not to be sought in the Writings of Swedenborg,* and a fortiori, not in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, which does not treat of theology, which does not treat primarily of mans duty to God and the neighbor.

* I. e., it is not to be sought in the HEAVENLY DOCTRINE.

It may then be asked, What is the use or function of these Writings? The answer is very simple. The eternal verity, the inestimable treasure is the Word itself, and the Writings serve only as a guiding light, as a candle or a bright light to enable us to understand their genuine meaning, and hold them in their proper relation in order that we may apply them in regulating our lives here, and only here can be found the Divine laws of order according to which the true Christian must live. We may use the light which Swedenborg gives us to explore the profound depths of Gods Word that we may the better find in it what we need, but we must and can take only just what we find there in that Word, and nothing else, and the New Church teaches that to do otherwise is to place ourselves in the most deadly peril. If the Court would realize that, from first to last, and before and above and beyond all other things, Swedenborg directs all men to go to Gods Holy Word for the true and only doctrine of life, it will be seen that he could not conscientiously and intentionally teach immorality.

It was because Bishop Phillips Brooks, James Freeman Clarke, Henry Ward Beecher, Tennyson, and the host of the great, true, and discerning men, really perceived this humble and reverent spirit in him, this prostration of himself before the Lord and His Holy Word, that they so warmly and forcibly commended the pure life and the religious teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg. It was the perception of his absolute morality, based on the teaching of the Word, that caused Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the great moral philosopher, to say, I can venture to assert that as a moralist Swedenborg is above all praise. It was the realization of this that caused that old cynic, Thomas Carlyle, ... to say this of Swedenborg, A man of indisputable cultivation, strong, mathematical intellect, of most pious, seraphic turn of mind [and more to the same effect].

In an appendix to the brief are summed up the reasons why CONJUGIAL LOVE does not treat of theology, namely

because it does not teach man what he should think and what he should do, because it does not pretend to give those truths from the Word by which, and only by which, men can know God;

because it does not specifically inculcate or teach a life according to the Commandments and to shun evils, which is to live well and which causes acknowledgment of the Lord; because it does not specifically and directly teach the general principles of religion by which everyone can be saved; because doctrine by which a man should regulate his life should not be sought in it; because there is so much information in it that was communicated to Swedenborg by angels, which information, while useful and necessary for the purpose for which it was recorded, is in itself the strongest proof that this book is not to be read for doctrine, for instruction in those things which man muse do.*

* See p. 270, where CONJUGIAL LOVE is called a Divine Revelation; and p. 283, where it is said to be full of Divine things.

(The statement in TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION--a book replete ... with the most scientific knowledge about God, and which exhorts and even commands man ... to shun evils as sins--that the demonstration of the profound spiritual things about creation does not properly enter into the system of theology of this book is then cited in illustration of this argument.)

This action on his part emphasizes the meaning he attaches to the word theology, and while those who claim CONJUGIAL LOVE to be a theological book in order that they may find excuse for lust may claim that the words spiritual and theological are synonymous, and while loose thinkers may confound the meanings of these words, it is very clear that Swedenborg, who was a most logical thinker and the strictest precisian in the use of words, never makes any such mistake, and when he said that CONJUGIAL LOVE does not treat of theology, he told all men that they must not, and that it would be useless for them to seek in thin book, especially the last part, the rules of life. And yet this does not derogate from the great value and special use of this revelation of Heavenly and infernal conditions and things, and especially of the Lords ways of extricating evil and natural men from more deadly evils to lighter ones.... This book has been of inestimable value, and is the only means by which a man may learn the true value and the real quality of true conjugial love, and for this reason will become more and more valuable and sacred in the future;... yet mans duty [is] to learn and do the things so constantly and persistently taught in the distinctively theological works, viz.: to shun evils as sins; to keep the Commandments; to know and acknowledge the Lord.... In CONJUGIAL LOVE there is no such advice, command or direction, for the obvious reason that it does not treat of things for man to do or exercise judgment about.

To illustrate, Mr. McGeorge refers to Heaven and Hell:

While what is there read about the blessedness of Heaven and its unspeakable joys and delights may well create a desire to enjoy that state, yet every New Churchman knows that he must not attempt to do the Heavenly things the angels do, and most certainly he is not to imitate the devils. All that he has to do ... is to acknowledge the Lord and shun evils as sins. Similarly it would be futile for a man to attempt to attain to the perfection of conjugial love as it exists in Heaven, and most certainly be should not permit himself to think for a moment that it is allowable for him to indulge in the insanities spoken of in the Second Part of the book.... All that he has to do is to acknowledge the Lord and shun evils as sins.

But to return to the brief. After showing that CONJUGIAL LOVE is not a theological book, Mr. McGeorge continues:

It is a good deal easier to say what it is not, or what it is not intended to do, than it is to definitely state all its scope and purpose, and the reason for this is because here we are in the domain of the Lord rather than in that of man; here Swedenborg is regarding things as the Lord regards them with His perfect knowledge and with His boundless and undying love.... The fact, doubtless, is that none of us are now prepared or able to understand all the Divine scope, meaning, and purpose of this revelation....

This wonderful book. ... is a revelation of something which is entirely consistent with the Lords methods as revealed in His Holy Word, and yet which is so foreign to our human ways of doing things that to our gross perceptions they seem to us immoral, and in this, as many men have often done in other matters, we assume to be better or wiser or more moral than our Lord.

The real teaching of the book was, that the Lord regards conjugial love as so vital

that if a man evinces a disposition to utterly extinguish it, the Lord will try to preserve a spark alive, even if it becomes necessary to cover it with the ashes resulting from the fires of impure loves, kindled by the man himself in direct violation of the Lords command.... The ashes must be cleaned off, but so long as there is any fire left there is hope.

In oral argument Mr. McGeorge gave a more positive definition of what CONJUGIAL LOVE is:

When it is said that this book does not treat of theology--I speak of it just to answer the point that is made by Counsel that this book is published in the list of theological works--nothing is said in derogation of its being classed as a theological book, using that word in a different sense. Theology, so far as man is concerned, instructs him as to his duties. These are very simple--to acknowledge God, to shun his evils and to keep the Commandments. In that sense, in Swedenborgs sense, this book is not a theological work. But the word theological is also used as meaning, pertaining to Divine things, and this book is full of Divine things. It enters into things of the highest possible right thought and comprehension.

After further reflections on the Divine Love, the brief continues:

There is an intimation in No. 463 that possibly a man might be enlightened by another as to matters treated of in this book, as in the hands of a specialist or a pastor, or even a parent, it might be of great help; but this is because these might be able to act from the understanding, from a perception of the truth unclouded by the smokes of passion; but this does not invalidate what has been said about its being forbidden to each man to judge in his own case....

Swedenborg said that this book treated chiefly of morals. This word morals has very many definitions, and certainly is not defined as it was over two hundred years ago. An old signification of the word was manners and customs, but it is not presumed to say exactly what Swedenborg did mean, nor is it regarded as necessary. One thing, however; is perfectly clear, and that is that the book is not designed to teach immorality.

As illustrating the difference in style between the treatise on CONJUGIAL LOVE and the distinctively theological works, DIVINE PROVIDENCE, No. 322, is given in full, from which

it appears that unless a man obeys and keeps the civil laws he cannot become a spiritual man, and therefore cannot be saved, which again proves that Swedenborg cannot possibly teach the violation of the civil law, nor that it is allowable to violate that law, for he says point blank: Although he [a man] does not commit adultery, yet because he believes it allowable, he is perpetually an adulterer; for he does commit [it] as far as it is possible and as often as he can with impunity. This is only practical common sense, for it is true spiritually as in physics that motion will always be along the line of least resistance.

There will be no determined effort to keep a law which it is believed it is allowable to break; and that constitutes the great danger of the teachings of the Academy, that it takes away the natural flood-gates and gives the surging tide of passion full scope and play.

After a lengthy disquisition on Divine forgiveness, Mr. McGeorge then undertakes to show from Swedenborgs theological teachings that he never intended anything to be found in the second part of CONJUGIAL LOVE to warrant or imply that any man was free to believe that, as to him, fornication, concubinage or any other form of adultery or evil allowable or not unlawful. He quotes HEAVEN AND HELL, No. 535; and after explaining the term as of himself, continues:

Is such plain and emphatic teaching consistent with the idea that to anyone it is allowable to do evil? If it is allowable, why make this supreme effort to overcome it? Would any man having such an idea in his mind make such an effort, when that effort means a cruel crucifying of the flesh and its lusts?

Those who have made a life study of Swedenborg know that he is not inconsistent, and it is hoped that in this one respect and as to this particular sin it has been shown that Swedenborg nowhere teaches that this or any sin is allowable, but, on the contrary, warns every man that it is sure spiritual death to him to allow such a thought to find lodgment in his mind, because this thought will corrupt the will and inevitably lead to the doing of what is believed to be allowed.

As a very obvious and natural argument against the charge of immorality, Mr. McGeorge refers to Sweden and the state of law in England at the time this book war, published, as justifying the conclusion that when Swedenborg appears of certain things being allowable or not unlawful he was speaking of what would be allowable, [or] not unlawful, in one or both of those countries at the time he wrote.* In confirmation of this, quotations are made from a book of travels in Sweden, showing the restrictions placed on early marriages, so that many were driven to spend their early manhood as libertines.

The law of England at the time is also noted, and the brief continues:

* Cf. Mr. Worcester on p. 421.

Having learned what we have from an entirely disinterested source about conditions in Sweden, which makes very clear what Swedenborg says in C. L. 450, and knowing that similar conditions existed in all continental Europe, and even worse in Russia, in which and in Germany such infamous laws or customs as that of Prima Nocte existed or obtained, was there any necessity for wise treatment of what is to this day the most terrible problem me have to contend with, and which has been called the social evil? If such a necessity existed, then a moralist not only had the abstract right, but there devolved upon him the most solemn duty to solve it and to endeavor to ameliorate conditions.

Cf. p. 409; also p. 287, It has no such use in our country, and under our laws.

Mr. McGeorge then dwells on the prevalence of immorality as shown by ancient and modern history, and by modern authors, and he cites two illustrations of the most revolting character. Recent statistics are quoted to show the great number of illegitimate births in Bavaria and France; and to further accentuate the terrible conditions that prevailed when Swedenborg wrote, he notes the impossibility of obtaining absolute divorces in all Catholic countries, and this was practically true of all Europe.

This led not only to concubinage in its worst forms, but to the most deadly sins, ... referred to in this book. So that we can well understand why Swedenborg should have attempted to ameliorate those conditions and certainly to import some decency into these conditions. (And Mr. McGeorge adds) Even if what he has written should be improperly taken as rules of action to be followed by individuals, there would be far more wisdom in it than in such religious ordinances as exist in Europe, requiring that only those who can produce certificates of baptism can be licensed as keepers and inmates of brothels. Strange things are done in the name of religion, and not the least strange is the condemnation by one set of religionists of the sincere efforts of others, and this without understanding them.

After noting that Swedenborg deposited some of his theological work in university libraries, Mr. McGeorge continues:

But while his great theological volumes were this disposed of and made little or no return to him, this work on CONJUGIAL LOVE was at once taken up by the learned men of his day, and he states that there was a great demand for it in Holland, Germany and France especially.* ... It is not to be conceived for a moment that the literati of Europe were interested in the profound spiritual revelations made in this book--they cared no more for them than they did for those contained in his distinctively theological works. What, then, was the secret of their interest? The view about to be expressed is the purely personal one of the speaker, an idea developed after a continuous study and restudy of this book for fifty years, and is offered with diffidence.

* See note, p. 269.

Mr. McGeorge then refer; to the letter of the Word which,

all through the ages, ... although understood in a very imperfect way, has been of incalculable service to man, and will continue to be so in its present form until its higher form is better known.... It has rendered, and will continue to render, great help to man until he is prepared for the higher truth. My idea is that something of a similar use has been performed, and perhaps will continue to be performed, for evil men by this book regarded only as a code of morals. But underneath this external code of morals, or rather in connection therewith, there is a revelation that is Divine, and by and by, as men become more spiritual, they will be enabled to obtain from it its more internal teachings, and, just as many passages in the Bible, so gross in the outward form that they are never read in churches or at family worship, are in the spiritual sense found to be some of the most beautiful and tender messages to be found in the whole Word, and all trace of grossness and immorality disappears, so it will be with CONJUGIAL LOVE.

Natural men, who care nothing for spiritual truth, indeed, who would be repelled by it, may be restrained from the more deadly evils portrayed in this book, not from any spiritual motive, but from a fear of the natural consequences* which are here shown to inevitably follow upon indulgence in them.

I have an idea that the apparently bewildering contradictions in this book to all the other positive teachings of our author are due to some such cause as just indicated. Internally and really the book is a revelation of Divine things and processes, and especially of the Lords ways with adulterous men, and His effort to restrain these men. Externally it is only a moral treatise, especially adapted to the dreadful times in which it was written, and the terrible conditions that prevailed then, and in this form it doubtless has and doubtless will render much service, and it was as such a treatise that it was eagerly sought for anti purchased and paid for by the scientists of Europe, who never bought a single one of his theological works. This book was recognized as containing most valuable and necessary, yea, indispensable, moral instruction that if followed on the merely natural plane would go far to ameliorate the horrible and intolerable moral conditions that universally prevailed.

* The book dwells but little on natural consequences.

See p. 266.

In oral argument, Mr. McGeorge, after noting the disposal of the theological works, says:

But when Swedenborg came to write this book he left his usual practice; he gave it his name, and he said that he was a Swede. In other words, this book is By Emanuel Swedenborg, a Swede. Why was that? Was he advertising himself? Oh! no; he had left all that behind twenty-five years ago. He had deliberately left the very pinnacle of eminence as a scientist to engage in this work, but every scientist in Europe knew Emanuel Swedenborg as the greatest scientist of his day, and therefore When he wanted to appeal to them he stated that his book was By Emanuel Swedenborg, a Swede; and it is a historical fact that this is the only one of his books from which there was any substantial reward to him. The scientific men of Europe sought it. Why? Because there was help for them in one of the most grievous conditions that could possibly obtain. This was the first and immediate use of this work, but it has no such use in our country and under our laws. There is no restraint of marriage here, therefore no necessity for fornication. The laws of divorce now in vogue prevent the impossible conditions that used to obtain, and absolutely preclude concubinage. But while the book is no longer needed in this country, at least on this merely moral plane, it will grow more and more valuable for its deep internal revelations.

The remote basis for this statement is given in note on p. 269.

Cf. p. 285.

The Brief concludes with a long defense of the Doctrine of the Lord, written in view of the Courts words about the Swedenborgian God.

Mr. McGeorge concluded his oral argument by saying that he held

no retainer in this case, except the Divine commission that comes to every honest man to advocate the cause of truth.... If a mistake is made now, and ... a wrong decision, is given in this case, it will never kill this Church, it will go on, but it will necessitate men to be more careful,--and I will tell you right now that this case, coming into this court, and producing as it did upon your mind the question that it did, has roused the whole Church, and in the future there will be no mistake where the New Church stands on this doctrine.

Argument by Mr. Coyle.

MR. COYLE, who followed Mr. McGeorge, maintained that the bequests to German Universities, the Lancaster Society and the New Church University, all had in view only the theological works. He then noted that the fund, amounting to forty or fifty thousand dollars,* would take but a short time to so accumulate as to be sufficient to establish a university. Summing up the Decision as laying down the interpretation of CONJUGIAL LOVE, he continued:

* The actual amount was about $35,000, without deducting legal expenses.

The Court says to the Academy, You teach from that book, and you teach what it warrants; and to the Trustees, You have respect for that book, and you teach purity from it, but the language does not warrant it. Therefore the Court holds that the proper interpretation is thus and so, an immoral and unlawful one.

Moreover, the Courts assumption that the work was a theological one, was against the evident.

There is no contradiction of the proof by Mr. Seward that this is not a theological book, and that Swedenborg himself said so* To decide that the Trustees took the wrong interpretation from this book, was not the true province of a civil tribunal.

* The offer to prove this was contradicted by Mr. Seward. pp. 179 and 196.

The undisputed testimony is that previous to 1879 nobody of this Church claimed that anything else [than morality] could or should be taught from it. Are we to be turned aside when we say we teach morality from that book, because there appear to be certain things in it which are improper? The doctrines contained in it, if there are any, should not be condemned because of what appears in it otherwise.

The Bible records had been made an excuse for adultery, but that did not say that purity could not be taught from the Bible. We claim to teach good from this book; the other side teach what is against the law of Pennsylvania.

The proper thing was to keep out from the Courts, if possible, this question of religious interpretation. Some interpretation, however, had to be made, and there was reason in the moral interpretation. The Court should accept; this interpretation which was fully warranted, and should say, The people who teach from it differently certainly cannot have the money, but the people who teach from it properly ought to have it.

Argument by Mr. Hensel.

The final argument was made by Mr. Hensel. He referred to the embarrassment of the heirs in claiming the fund on the ground that the object which their grandfather had in view was immoral. He could also understand the

difficulty and embarrassment of our learned friends from Philadelphia, who raised this issue, and now, like another Frankenstein, are confronted with the apparition of their own bloody ghost.

Who first asserted that the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE was immoral? Not we.

Yet this had become the issue of the case.

The whole core of the decree, as expressed in the syllabus, was:

Any devise to any institution, which teaches, not the doctrines of this book or that book, but the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, not as laid down by Mr. McGeorge, and not as expounded by Bishop Pendleton, but as laid down in the writings, not the astronomical writings, not the mineralogical writings, not moral writings, not theological writings, but all the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, is void. All are swept away at one fell swoop. Why? Because somewhere, on some page of some chapter of one of the one hundred and forty-nine books written by Swedenborg, is found what your Honor declares to be a principle and doctrine repugnant to the laws of the land, the statutes of Pennsylvania, and inconsistent with the conventions of society.

Such judicial criticism, he added, would obliterate nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand of the classical works of literature, and would decimate every art gallery in the world.

He agreed that civil tribunals should not enter into the interpretation of religious doctrines, but; the previous speaker had not been consistent.

In one breath, out of the supreme necessity which arises from the sweeping character of your Honors judgment,--not against the Academy but against the New Church,... they protest that your Honor has no right to decide and determine between their interpretation [and ours], and they appeal to your Honor to do that very thing, and to say that what Messrs. McGeorge, Worcester, and Seward say these passages mean is exactly what Emanuel Swedenborg said they meant, and not what the Bishop says they mean.

He then took up Mr. McGeorges argument that the bequest was to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, and that these doctrines are not to be found in Swedenborgs ARCANA COELESTIA, not to be found in his mineralogy, not to be found in CONJUGIAL LOVE, but they are to be found in three simple propositions, Believe in God; Shun Evil; Obey His Commandments.

What is there (he asked) that is characteristic about that doctrine or dogma, or decree or education? Where is there a Protestant church anywhere that does not profess that?

A legacy to teach the whole doctrine of Christianity,--Believe in God, Shun Evil, Keep His Commandments, would be void for lack of certainty. But what were the words of the Will? After bequests for purchasing such of the writings, etc., and for the theological Writings, Mr. Kramph, when he came to the University, provided for an institution

for universal New Church education in these United States, and for the education of New Church ministers who will teach the doctrines of the New Church. How? Not as expounded by any individual, but as laid down in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. Not his theological writings, not his condensed, extracted or selected writings, but as found in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

It was therefore immaterial to the case whether CONJUGIAL LOVE was a theological or a moral book. As a matter of fact, however, all the testimony showed that it was a theological book. After quoting the testimony of Messrs. Worcester (p. 186), Alden (p. 207), and Seward (p. 196), to this effect, Mr. Hensel continued:

We do not depend entirely upon Mr. Seward, Mr. Worcester or Mr. Alden. We have higher authority than any before this Court today. Mr. McGeorge, speaking of this book, said, It is full of divine truth. Where is the Church that would exclude from its theological seminary a book that is full of divine truth on the ground that it was not a theological work?... But we do not stand on Alden, Worcester nor Seward, nor even McGeorge, but we quote an authority higher even then Mr. McGeorge, and that is, Emanuel Swedenborg himself.

He then read from TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, No. 313, ending with the reference to CONJUGIAL LOVE, for more concerning these things; and continued;

That is the language of Emanuel Swedenborg, referring those who look for his doctrine and his interpretation and his view on this commandment to his work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, as an integral and central part of his whole system of thought.

He noted that nowhere in Swedenborgs writings, or in the teachings of the Academy, was it suggested that what is complained of should be a rule of life or conduct; nowhere was it enjoined upon men; nowhere was there any lapse from the severest denunciation of all adulteries and improper practices with regard to the relation of the sexes; and he took the broad position that what the law reaches

is not what a man believes, it is not what a. man thinks, but it is what a man does. An institution which teaches doctrine which may be for the time being not in accord with the conventions of society or in derogation of the statutes of the Commonwealth, is not necessarily contrary to public morals, and so long as there is not a suggestion in the teachings nor in the practices of the institution, or in the persons who are complained of, of a willful violation or denunciation of the civil law,--so long the law cannot touch a man for what he thinks.

Turning from this phase of the subject, Mr. Hensel then stated that no one disputed that the primary object of the Academy was education. Nobody pretended, not even those who criticized the Academy, that the Academy was organized to teach any particular doctrine on this subject.* It was merely incidental to the whole course of instruction.

* Subsequently the McGeorge Trustees did make this astonishing charge (see p. 401). Cf. p.180.

But even conceding that the doctrine was in derogation, what then?

If a religious denomination or an educational institution is not qualified to take a bequest because in some recitation in one department of one professor, in the whole great curriculum of its teaching, there is a suggestion that all is not as it should be,--then, I repeat, can any institution, can any church receive under your Honors decree in this ease, a bequest or take an inheritance, or obtain a charter, if it can be shown that it teaches that something is immoral, improper, which the law of the State of Pennsylvania says is not?...

What particular sacredness attaches to the statute law on the subject of sexual relations? Who shall say that fornication is a more grievous sin than drunkenness; that adultery is more heinous than larceny? Why, neither adultery nor fornication is indictable at common law, and only recently were they made crimes in the State of New York. Men have very varying views about these things. Adultery and fornication are in themselves serious offenses, but however we may feel bound to uphold the sanctity of marriage, the purity and chastity of marriage and virginity, yet as a matter of fact, offenses of this class are treated with the most extreme lenity by society.

The decision was so far-reaching that under it

you are bound to say that every institution, every society, every church, every club, every scientific association, which for the time being teaches a doctrine that is either inconsistent with what your Honor calls the conventions of society or which is in derogation of the statute cannot inherit a bequest; and the reverse would also be true, namely, that no institution could say that to be immoral which the law held to be moral.

Mr. Hensel dwelt at great length on these points, illustrating by universities that teach that the tariff is immoral; by societies that declare the same of State-supported vaccination; by schools that teach the morality of vivisection,--a practice which at any time might be made a criminal offense; by the Quakers, Mennonites and other denominations. Wherein, he asked, was the position of such societies any better than the position of the church or school which, according to the private interpretation made by the Court of a fragment of those writings, was declared to teach in derogation of the statutes and antagonistic to the conventions and economics of society? To be sure the illustrations concerned things that were not malum in se; but it was malum prohibitum that had been appealed to by the Court in the present case on the ground that it is in derogation of the statutes of Pennsylvania.

The established principle was that it is the practice of a teaching that is against the law that makes a man liable to the civil law, but so long as it is not practiced, so long as it is not enjoined, so long as it is not recommended, and so long as the whole question is of the faith of the Church, which does not manifest itself in any outward iniquity, what does the Supreme Court of the United States say?

The liberty of men to indulge in private opinion upon religious subjects and to exercise and to express and to carry out in their deeds and life and acts what they believe. Religious liberty as a root right embraces more than mere opinion, sentiment, faith, or belief; it includes the whole human dogma which gives the expression to the relation between man and God, which includes all affirmations, filling all forms of faith and acts of worship to which man is impelled by his position, or feels it necessary for his internal culture or external expression to religious sentiment. It means entire freedom to thought end worship, with the restriction upon the government that it cannot go behind the overt act. Thus far shalt thou go, and no further.

Now who says (he continued) that any member of the New Church ever engaged in any act in derogation of the statutes of Pennsylvania during the one hundred and fifty years of its existence?... By their fruits ye shall know them. If the construction which Your Honor has seen fit to put upon these passages would admit of any such construction, somewhere in this community, somewhere in the neighborhood of Bryn Athyn, somewhere is this city, in this state, or in other states, or other countries, there would have been at least some foul excrescence arising out of this pernicious interpretation. There is no such thing, as must have transpired, had it existed.... Since this opinion was first uttered, there has not been a single living example of the moral destructiveness of the doctrine which has been reprobated and criticized.

But in speaking thus he conceded nothing to the claim by the heirs that the Academy was teaching a false doctrine, nor to the contention of the Trustees that they are the true Church, and we are false prophets.

There is not a line or a letter in that book, which can be found to sustain for a single moment in any form of intelligent and enlightened criticism, the accusation that this book encourages promiscuity, or is calculated to excite the transgression of the civil law or the moral law.

Nor did the Academy put into Swedenborg a meaning he had never intended. All that this Academy says is what I now understand our learned friend concedes, that Emanuel Swedenborg did write this book, that he wrote it, believing and maintaining that he, in this as in all his other works,--whether you call them moral, theological, philosophical, or by whatever name you call them,--had a revelation from heaven itself; and this Academy simply says to its students, It is there; we cannot reject it; we have no right to reject it.

Mr. Hensel then drew a comparison with the Scriptures. Some denominations explained them one way and some another, but it was not the function of the Court to decide which was the correct interpretation; and so neither was it competent for the Court to decide whether the Academy or Mr. McGeorges Trustees put the proper interpretation on this passage.

After summing up Mr. Hensel concluded by referring to the hastiness of the Courts opinion. He made this no matter of reproach, for he took it

that none of us realized in the former argument of this case how far-reaching the consequences might have been, or it might have been the subject of more labored argument and prolonged consideration, but time amply elapses between now and the time that it can be heard by the appellate court, for your Honor to consider it in the light of all that you have heard and of all you can read upon the subject.... I believe that an error has been committed here which must eventually meet the overwhelming condemnation of the higher court; and I appeal to your Honor to give this case a thorough and careful reconsideration.

Before the Court adjourned, Mr. Coyle explained his position as being that the Court should make no interpretation at all; but if it found that the body claiming the fund put an interpretation which was against the law, and the views of modern times, you could give us the money; they could not have it.

9.

SECOND DECISION.

The Court handed down its decision dismissing the exceptions on March 4, 1909, ten weeks after the argument.

The Court stated that its former opinion had been misunderstood.

It has been said that the Court questioned the teachings of Swedenborg, which is correct. It has been argued that the Court presumed to decide what Swedenborg taught and to pass upon theological doctrines, which is not correct. Neither did the Court directly, nor indirectly, suggest the doctrines around which the conflict is raging. With premeditation and special preparation, the exceptants voluntarily and with insistence introduced them. They wrenched from Swedenborgs doctrines and writings on Scortatory Love detached paragraphs and set them out in naked relief.

The Decision then quotes from Mr. Doerings testimony (pp. 171, 172). The Declaration of the Bishop is given in full, followed by CONJUGIAL LOVE, Nos. 467-473, and the Court continues:

The concluding paragraph of the Declaration submits the hypothetical conclusion that if the doctrine taught is immoral, revelation is responsible for it.

The charge that the Court had made unfair excerpts from CONJUGIAL LOVE was characterized as a most startling and ill-considered statement. The Declaration had referred him to Nos. 462-467, and he had quoted 467-473.*

* See note on p. 238.

Not only were selections made for the Court, but they were confined exclusively to the scortatory or second part of CONJUGIAL LOVE, and a copy of the book with annotations and marks directing attention to the parts complained of, those for the quoting of which the Court is charged with having discriminated to the prejudice of the exceptants, was handed to the Court. There was no excerpting by the Court.

That which was marked, emphasized and dwelt upon, began with fornication and ended with concubinage. And, further, in amplification of what had been declared, selected and marked, Laws of Order for the Preservation of the Conjugial, was offered in evidence.... The author speaks for the Academy and declares its teachings. He treats exclusively of Scortatory Love and makes no attempt to disguise the doctrine found in it. On the contrary, he advocates its meretricious principles. He deplores that this pure and holy book has been torn asunder, and the second pert, which is an integral part of the whole, has been termed the skeleton in the New Church closet; has been rejected as a foul and hideous thing, as an immoral book to be ashamed of, to be repudiated.

No annotated or marked copy of CONJUGIAL LOVE was offered in evidence on the part of the Academy so far as is known; but see p. 175.

The Court then quotes a number of passages from LAWS OF ORDER, including the answer to Mr. Seward as to the duty of man (pp. 134-5); and the statement that pellicacy and concubinage, when engaged in from legitimate, just and really serious causes do not condemn man (pp. 138-9). The book is further quoted to show that CONJUGIAL LOVE is a. Divine revelation, and therefore binding on the New Churchman (p. 142); that with the man, who has been married, necessity may be greater, and hence the evil, of concubinage may be more pardonable than the evil of pellicacy (p. 155); that while emphasis is to be laid on the warning against unnecessary indulgence (p. 155), yet this must not be dwelt on to such an extent as to practically make the allowances unavailable (p. 157); that there are men who cannot restrain themselves (p. 158); that pellicacy and concubinage are not sinful in the sight of God, since they are to preserve the conjugial (p. 168); but are something as it were analogous to marriage (p. 169); and, finally, that a man in these evils, from the intention of preserving the conjugial, does not depart from purity, but on the contrary is initiated into purity (p. 184).

The Court then turns to the Brief by the Rev. Alfred Acton, also a professor at the Academy, and, quoting from it, that discrimination must be made between the judgments of God and that of the law, he observes, It is now under the judgment of the law.

Continuing that the writer evidently recognized that the doctrine is contrary to the civil law, and appreciated that if one practiced it, he may be called upon to answer to the law, the Court quotes further to show that Swedenborg recognized that; fornication may be against the civil law of a country; that he was well aware of the widespread existence of brothels; and that by not unlawful, he did not mean that; it was not against the existing civil law. On these excerpts the Court remarks:

The gentleman recognizes that the doctrine is contrary to the law and also that Swedenborg so taught, but, regardless of the law, its acceptance is urged. it is preached, not as if for a disputed interpretation of the law, or as an argument for the revision of the law, but in defiance of the law.

The Court further quotes from the same paper, to the effect that, even where a judge personally believes the fornicator to be in the evil from necessity, yet he must pronounce sentence according to the law, and can make discrimination only within the limits of his discretionary powers in passing sentence.

In substance (the Court then continues) it is said, we teach a doctrine seductive and spiritual. It comes not circuitously, but directly from the Lord. If you accept it and live up to it, heaven will be your reward. By so doing you will violate the laws of the state, but heed them not, except to avoid detection and conviction, and even if you are thus unfortunate, you have the consolation that in the righteous judgment of the Lord you are pure and will be permitted to luxuriate in conjugial bliss throughout eternity.

Then the Court, of his own motion, proceeded to make some short quotations from the neglected first part of CONJUGIAL LOVE. The quotations consisted of a column of detached sentences taken verbatim et literatim from SEARLES INDEX, under the word conjugial love.

It will be seen (the Court comments) that this incomprehensible phenomenon, the joy of time and for eternity, needs for its protection and sustenance the scortatory, which doctrine was selected and pressed with sovereign sanction as the canon supreme.

Attention is then turned to the General Convention:

It would be a mistake to leave the impression that the theological school of the General Convention does not teach the doctrine found in CONJUGIAL LOVE. It may not emphasize it as does the Academy, but it is included in its curriculum.

THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD, by the President of the General Convention, is quoted as saying that to teach these things to a young man or a married man, separated from his wife, as laws or order, is a very different thing from teaching that they are laws of permission only. To which the Court adds, That is, the Academy ... teaches the doctrine as laws of order, while the General Convention teaches it as laws of permission. In confirmation the opinion includes some excerpts from Mr. Aldens stenographic notes of lectures by the Rev. John Worcester, including the passage:

Some men say that there is no need of any indulgence at all. If they will only throw themselves on the Lord they will be entirely freed and will have no more trouble. That is practically nonsense* and in order that they may come to the Lord for His help, they need to have a, good deal of instruction. [See p. 202.]

* And yet this exactly describes the position of the Convention as set forth in its STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE (see p. 429), and especially as given in THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD.

The Court also quotes the case of a young man, of whom Mr. Worcester says: I would have limited him to one ... and provided that that one be as suitable as possible [see p. 210].

The opinion then deals with the Brief submitted by one of the counsel [Mr. McGeorge],

who, we understand, in addition to being a. lawyer, is a minister of the New Church.... He appears to be an apologist and we infer that he would, if he could conscientiously do it, consign CONJUGIAL LOVE to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. But, being a disciple of Swedenborg, whom he reveres and believes to have been divinely inspired and whose writings he accepts as infallible truths, he has much trouble in his attempts to get away from their influence, and more in his efforts to show that they teach nothing immoral.

He frankly concedes that, as the ease was presented, no other decision than the one pronounced could well be given. He also says, some of the statements as interpreted by the Academy are in absolute contravention of the criminal law of Pennsylvania.

The Court goes on to say that Mr. McGeorge admits that CONJUGIAL LOVE teaches that there are two kinds of concubinage, one being not unlawful, or not unpermissible, because the Lord has not the power to prevent. On this he comments:

Why distinguish between concubinage with a wife and concubinage apart from a wife? Conceding the limitations of omnipotence, the will would be as free to act in the one case as in the other, and both would be not unpermissible.

He then turns to the argument that in CONJUGIAL LOVE Swedenborg is dealing with matters in the domain of the Lord rather than in that of man, and he adds:

The law works in the domain of man and does not distinguish between the gross and mild forms of the crime. It recognizes no permissible form of concubinage and offers no pardon for any kind, however extenuating the circumstances may have been considered by Swedenborg, and thus by a rigid rule offers no hope of forgiveness, and thereby entirely destroys a condition which, under Swedenborgs teachings, tends to deaden sensibilities as to crimes, and necessarily operates to increase criminal acts. The law prohibiting fornication and adultery is founded on the Christian religion and the scientific theory that one can and shall control his salacious desires. There are no degrees of this offense, no palliating exceptions and no questions of intent to be referred to the Almighty. It rests on a different system of morals from those taught by Swedenborg, which is not declaring that which he taught is immoral, but that it is not moral, judged by the standard which inspired the law and is fixed by it.

Again turning to Mr. McGeorges Brief, the Court quotes

that it is wrong for anyone to pretend to understand the divine scope, meaning and purpose of the revelation found in CONJUGIAL LOVE because they are beyond mans understanding;

that in it there is a revelation of something which is entirely consistent with the Lords methods,... and yet which is so foreign to our human ways of doing things that to our gross perceptions they seem to us immoral;... that if a man evinces a disposition to utterly extinguish it [CONJUGIAL LOVE], the Lord will try to preserve a spark alive, even if it becomes necessary to cover it with the ashes resulting from the fires of impure loves. Undoubtedly (the Court adds) this is beyond mans understanding. The law does not comprehend the danger of the loss of the jewel, or the holy fire, in the event of one not having agreeable relations with his wife or not having a wife. Rather does it say let it be extinguished. Instead of being protected by such methods, conjugal love, it is believed, would be imperiled.

If the doctrines of CONJUGIAL LOVE were Divine, then the law was fundamentally wrong; nevertheless, it must be sustained until it has been repealed, and to do this will require a revulsion of the national conscience and understanding, than which more likely is it that an ancient Scottish, and may be English, law of Mercheta (Blackstone, II, 83) and the Russian and German Prima Nocte will be revived. It may be true, as it is claimed, that the Lord will deal with man as taught in this book, but man will not deal with man in that way. We console ourselves with the belief that the Lord will forgive the sins of men, but for their crimes the law will imprison and hang. It would appear to be more becoming and reverential to let the Lord out of this controversy altogether....We are not considering motive and purpose, but acts, or more particularly teachings which will encourage acts, which are violations of the law and contrary to public policy.

Then follow a number of citations from Krafft-Ebings PSYCHOPATHIA SEXUALIS, showing the close connection between the overcoming of coarse sensual love and a high civilization; and, on the other hand, between the increase of sensuality and the destruction of the state; also that the laws of all civilized nations punish those who commit perverse sexual acts, because the preservation of chastity and morals is one of the most important reasons for the existence of the Commonwealth.

The Court notes the objection that his first decree would prohibit the publication of many well-known works, and says:

It is one thing to publish classic works in which there appear erotic episodes, but quite another to endow an institution which is to teach in perpetuity doctrines which are subversive of the principles which support the law.

Adverting to the argument that a devise to a Mormon institution is not voided, he says:

Such devises may have been effected, as there is no doubt this one would have been had the exceptants not insisted upon making a scortatory doctrine the prominent feature. Except for this, there would have been a simple distribution, scarcely influenced by a debatable legal problem and wholly free from sensational disturbances. In which event it could have been cited as a precedent, if necessary, for allowing a devise to promulgate the doctrine of polygamy.... It is probable that bequests to organizations which taught sedition and treason have not been declared void by reason of the fact that their teachings were not known or brought to the attention of the court. But this can be no reason for allowing one when the objectionable features are known. It rather suggests the importance of making an example and establishing a precedent which will quickly be followed and operate in every direction.

He dismisses the argument that the Quakers and other bodies opposed to fundamental governmental policies, are not outlawed as to bequests, by saying that the question had never become an active one, but if they should teach doctrines positively subversive of the law, it is not impossible for the question as to their limitations to arise.

The opinion takes up the comparison of the Bible with SCORTATORY LOVE or CONJUGIAL LOVE, holding the comparison to be not a good one. The Bible records immoralities merely as historical facts.

They are not held up as examples worthy of emulation. No Christian church offers a doctrine which embodies such practices as essentials. None points to such acts as spiritual complements, nor has any said that they exemplify a doctrine which each individual shall interpret as to him seems proper. By all are they, without reservation or qualification, condemned. But if some testator should select even from the Bible incontinent writings of one of the authors and provide for their teaching, and they derogated the law, the devise ought to meet with no better fate than this one deserves.

The Court then quotes from the Will and continues:

The Academy exactly meets the requirements imposed by the testator upon the beneficiary intended by him, and the intention is unmistakable that to such a one, if in existence prior to the final settlement of his estate, the devise shall immediately go. The testamentary trustees were intended only as a temporary expedient in the event of there being no corporate body in existence at the time of the settlement of the estate which measured up to the requirements. It is the veriest quibble to pretend that the testator did not intend the university to teach that which those whom it taught were required to teach. Universal New Church education covers it all. But special attention was to be given to the education of New Church ministers, who are especially enjoined to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, as laid down in the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg. This does not mean that the testator intended to have taught the doctrines of a church as laid clown in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg as distinguished from the doctrines laid clown in his writings. Such an argument would have some force as applied to the old church, the Christian Church, which was repudiated by Swedenborg. The language of the Will might be misleading to one who has not been informed by the testimony of Swedenborgs followers. While appearing to do so, it, nevertheless, does not express an analogous intention to that of one who might give for the endowment of a college which is to teach the doctrines of one of the Christian denominations. But the testator meant nothing of the kind, for the reason that he was a Swedenborgian and recognized no doctrinal authority except such as each found for himself in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. There is no uncertainty about the testators intentions. It was his purpose to have established a school which would teach the doctrines found in the writings of Swedenborg. The doctrines of the New Jerusalem are that the writings of Swedenborg are the Lords Word, and that they are for each individual as each may interpret them. The doctrine which is emphasized is to put faith in no council, but in the Lords Word which is above councils.

Among Swedenborgs most conspicuous writings is CONJUGIAL LOVE. It is probable that it has awakened more interest and excited more controversies than all his other writings put together. If the testator had not intended it to be taught, he would have excluded it. There is no doubt that it was his intention and wish to have it taught.

The Academy would not be such a university as was contemplated by the testator if it did not teach it. If the Academy had not been founded and we had had the power to award the gift to the successors of the testamentary trustees, only such as is the Academy would be entitled to receive it. Nor can it be said that the Trustees would have attempted to transfer it to any other. True, members of this board hold different views as to the proper interpretation of this book, and, while that is their special privilege, nevertheless, as Trustees they would be obliged to properly execute the trust committed to them. While there has been dissension among individuals over this book, it is none the less true that the theological schools of the New Church teach it and that the testator intended to have it taught and to have it taught as the Academy teaches it, for its teaching seems to logically conserve the doctrine as laid down by Swedenborg. Having reached the conclusion that the Academy is the devisee intended by the testator, we come to the real question: Had the testator the right to devise as he did?

Generally speaking one may do with his own while living as he chooses, but no such latitude has he as to his property after he is dead. Even in life a man may not use his own in a way that is offensive to the public conscience and injurious to public policy, and still less can he order this done after his death.

One who keeps a mistress, whatever the circumstances, commits fornication or adultery, both of which are statutory crimes. To teach under any conditions, either as a theological doctrine, a moral principle or a sanitary precaution, that one may keep a mistress is to instill ideas which will destroy respect for the law and necessarily encourage criminal acts. Anything which will lessen respect for the law will increase its violations, and nothing will do both as much as a belief that the Almighty will hold the transgressor blameless.

The Court again referred to the selection by exceptants of the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE.

Their interest in the doctrines therein enunciated was pronounced, and the only logical and rational conclusion to be drawn was that the selected book, the selected part of the boob, the selected passages from the part and the testimony of witnesses were intended to emphasize a new doctrine taught by a new church. While it may not be possible to escape the conclusion that it is immoral, nevertheless, we did not say it, but decided that it conflicted with the laws of the state, and, therefore, a devise to perpetuate it is void.

There was no occasion for him to display familiarity with Swedenborgs whole system, nor did he lay claim to this.

Only that which was offered in evidence was considered. Anything more might have been outside our province to have passed upon, but we did accept what exceptants told us, and we claim to be as competent as a Quarter Sessions jury to understand the definitions of adultery and fornication. We did not attempt to pass upon a religion, but we did attempt to pass upon facts with mathematical precision. With as much justification could a Mohammedan, to whom a harem in this state would be forbidden, claim to be persecuted for his religious convictions as these exceptants.

Referring to the charge that the decree had been based on a few excerpts from the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE, the opinion continues:

The First Part me are told belongs to pure faith. The Second Part, which was carefully selected for us, touches upon vital relations between man and woman on earth, which are regulated by the courts end the laws of the land. This, therefore, is the only part which comes under the jurisdiction of this Court and is the only part which lies within the province of the Courts legitimate dealings. With about as much reason could it be said that one cannot commit a. crime because he had previously led an honest life as to say because S8wedenborg wrote many volumes in which he taught no immoral doctrines, therefore, he could not have done it in CONJUGIAL LOVE.... To say that a mans common sense tells him that it is better that one mistress be kept than that promiscuous whoredom be indulged in, is not to the point. His sense and conscience tell him it is better that he do neither,--and this is not mere mawkish sentiment.

While nature may call for coition, society demands its regulation, and to that end has approved only of marriage. The natural man has restricted his animal inclinations and he can and shall subdue them when necessary for the good of society. Even the licentious would halt the adoption of rules for social conduct modeled after their example and shudder at a system built upon their practices. Notwithstanding both conscience and law ever have been and ever will be violated, if for no other reason than that of expediency, a contingency consistent with monogamy must be the rule. Air and food are necessities; concubinage must be in the same class, or it is not a necessity.... Sir James Pagret specifically states that chastity hurts neither mind nor the body.

Krafft-Ebing says, Cases of sexual delinquency that occur outside of states of mental defect, degeneration, or disease, can never be excused on the ground of irresponsibility. While some of the medical profession believe that sexual intercourse is sometimes beneficial to degenerates, the doctors who are preeminent have never been willing to give advice not in strict consonance with the tenets of the most rigid morality. The idea of framing or adapting a law to conform to the pleasures of degenerates would be repugnant to even the heedless and dissolute. The thought movement is in an opposite direction: not to pander to degenerates, but to exterminate them.

Krafft-Ebing is again quoted as saying that

Scientific investigation shows that a man mentally and sexually degenerate ab origine, and therefore irresponsible, must be removed from society for life, but not as a punishment.

The Court then quotes Kingsley that the word conjugial is a pedantry on Swedenborgs part, and adds, that its spiritual significance and theological importance ... are foreign to our institutions. The bequest was for the dissemination of the doctrine laid down in CONJUGIAL LOVE, the doctrine of which was claimed to teach the most perfect condition for man.

The Court here makes some gross reflections on Swedenborgs teaching, which we forbear from quoting.

Having thus dismissed the attempt to germinate in the Court a consciousness of the profundity and seraphicism of the conjugial the opinion quotes DOCTRINE OF LIFE, 76:

No one can know what the chastity of marriage is but he who shuns the lasciviousness of adultery as sin. A man may know that in which he is; but he cannot know that in which he is not.

From which it deduces that Swedenborg, not having been married, was therefore ignorant of the conjugial (see p. 337).

This would be an explanation of his doctrine that conjugial love may be derived through fornication and that the love of marriage and chastity may be preserved if the love of the sex be restrained to one mistress.

The argument that eminent men have written pleasing and graceful lines about Swedenborg is answered by quotations from Kant that the ARCANA COELESTIA is eight quarto folios of pure nonsense, and its author the worst of all visionaries; and by a long passage from a medical contemporary work animadverting on Swedenborg as a supreme example of the egotism, self-sufficiency and exaltation of the imaginative faculties characteristic of mental disease. To say that Swedenborgs doctrines had been recognized as an elevated phase of Christian truth was a bald assertion; it would be more correct to say that

Swedenborg has been regarded as a psychological curiosity. But even were his doctrine of conjugial love of the utmost purity, still it is contrary to the law, and we are here to enforce the law.... The law is the expression of the ethical conscience of the people, and is the result of that conscience. The law sprang from that conscience, not the conscience from the law. The fundamental question is, may one give his estate for the propagation of principles which sear that conscience and shatter the foundations of a civilization which has been building for two thousand years?

The Court then drifted into some loose characterization of the Swedenborgian religion. While confessing, We are not able to say, nor are we called upon to decide, whether that religion is pagan or Catholic, it yet concludes that it is probably neither. Its God was not the God of the Christian Church, and its name, New Church, was an appropriate one. It is newer than our laws. and is founded on different principles.

Noting that the most difficult person to discipline is one who holds himself responsible to his God alone, the Court then dwells on the freedom of the citizen.

He may preach his religion, denounce courts, criticize their interpretation of the law, advocate a different one, demand the repeal of laws and the enactment of others, and harangue and inflame the people....

But a limit must be drawn when it is necessary to protect the foundations, not of a particular law, but of all civil laws,--civilization. ... The Swedenborgian doctrine of fornication and concubinage smacks of the anarchistic doctrine of legalized prostitution. It attacks the main foundation of our national existence, it undermines that upon which the Republic rests, it defies the very laws which courts are called upon to protect, it takes from us the most precious inheritance which has made courts of justice not only possible, but rational.

The Court added that Swedenborgs idea of eternal marriage was probably appropriated ... from Publius Syrus,* but the chapters on fornication and concubinage had stultified the whole cause. For a possible explanation of this he again cites PSYCHOPATHLA SEXUALIS, to the effect that there is so close a correspondence between love in the religious and sexual spheres, that intense emotion calls forth now the one and now the other.

* See NEW CHURCH LIFE for May, 1909, p. 303.

The opinion then stated that the cases cited showed that the Courts must interfere where the scheme to be fostered offends against the Christian religion, public morality, or public policy, is hostile to morality, religion and law, and in violation of good order. A Federal case is cited, where it was

held that though polygamy had the sanction of a religion, its practices are in violation of social duties and subversive of good order, and, therefore, prohibited; (and Judge Smith added) Polygamy exemplifies a more commendable doctrine than concubinage, in that it does not destroy the idea of the family.

The former adjudication was then affirmed except as to the bequests to the Lancaster Society and German universities, which were granted.

10.

THE APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT.

The case was taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, where argument was made in Philadelphia on May 19, 1909.

Mr. Hensel argued for the Academy, Mr. Johnson for the Trustees, Mr. Baker for the heirs, and Mr. Johnson a second time in general defense of the New Church.

It is unnecessary to give a report of these arguments, inasmuch as each speaker followed the general line of his Brief. Where additions were made they will be noted in the summaries of the Briefs which follow.

Brief for the Academy.*

* The Brief here summarized was presented before the Supreme Court. It is essentially identical with the Brief presented before the Lancaster Court at re-argument. See p. 251.

The Brief noted that the Court below had found for the Academy in every one of its contentions, namely:

1. That the Trustees of the Will were intended to receive the bequest only in the event of there being in existence at the time of final settlement no university such as was contemplated;

2. That the testator intended the University to teach the Doctrines found in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg without regard to whether those writings were moral or theological;

3. That the Academy fulfilled the requirements of the Will in every respect.

But the Court had held that the testators intention was not a proper one, this conclusion being based upon the admitted teaching of the Academy,... holding to Swedenborgs faith--of the whole of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, which included chapters on Fornication and Concubinage.

Because it teaches Swedenborgs writings as he wrote them, and as the testator intended it should teach them, Judge Smiths opinion puts upon it the stigma of bastard, and he holds it can no more take a bequest than a bastard can succeed to his or her fathers estate.

A bequest to a Swedenborgian institution was put on the same plane as a trust for the propagation of atheism, infidelity, immorality, and hostility to the existing form of government. This was the whole case, as determined by the Court. The single vital question, therefore, was: Does the fact that the citations made by the Court from CONJUGIAL LOVE are received and accepted with the great body of Swedenborgs Doctrine by the Academy, make void this bequest and merit outlawry for all New Church institutions?

It might seem sufficient answer to point out the great historical fact, that for nearly one hundred and fifty years Swedenborg had been universally recognized as one of the great Christian philosophers; that his works had been widely distributed in every modern language, and no theological instruction ventured to disregard them as one of the vital forces of Christian faith. Churches to maintain Swedenborgian Doctrines had received thousands of bequests without challenge; institutions to spread them had been incorporated, and this is the first utterance of judicial condemnation ... which has ever been heard.

Yet the decree must prevail if it could be supported by sound reasoning.

Justice to its author may require that what is most odious and extreme in the work the Court condemns should be fairly presented; but justice to the Church attacked by the Court and to its members, as well as to its pure minded and illustrious founder, also demands that no detached paragraphs, or even isolated chapter shall be wrenched from its context in the great body of his doctrines and writings, and set out in naked relief, with either the purpose or the result of misrepresenting his doctrines, and giving to certain words undue emphasis and false or forced significance.

The Courts conclusion was in the nature of an original undertaking, urged by none of the contestants. No party to the suit had attacked the writings of Swedenborg. An attack was made upon the teachings of the Academy as not founded upon the Doctrines of Swedenborg, and as contrary to public policy, but this line of attack, though instituted, was never followed up, much less sustained, and there is not one line of testimony in this case to show that the Academy teaches anything but the Doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg.

This also had been found by the Court.

The Trustees, speaking for General Convention, ... did not repudiate the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, but had simply undertaken to prove that the Academy misinterpreted it. The Court found otherwise.

The heirs could not have intended to attack the writings, since they asked for money to distribute them in Germany and in Lancaster.

In oral argument, Mr. Hensel said in this connection that

the conclusions of the Court had gone far beyond the suggestions of the McGeorge Trustees, who had never of course contemplated that, in trying to pull out the corner stone, they would bring down the whole edifice in ruins upon their head. The Lancaster Court had declared that the doctrines of Swedenborg, not only as taught by the Academy,--because the opinion bristles with the suggestion reiterated and repeated, that the Academy teaches and adheres, even more strongly than the element in the Church represented by the Trustees, to the Doctrines of Swedenborg, and that the fault is not in the teachings of the Academy but in the Doctrines themselves,--but as taught by the New Church generally were an attack on marriage, a fundamental institution of society in this commonwealth and country.

The argument is then entered into under four headings:

I. THE COURTS CONCLUSIONS ARE FOUNDED UPON SELECTED EXCERPTS. THE CONTEXT HAS BEEN IGNORED. THE BOOK, DOCTRINES, AND CHURCH SHOULD BE JUDGED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

To show the record of this writer of immoral books, Swedenborgs exemplary life is noted; the scientific and theological subjects on which he wrote;

the honor and esteem in which he was and still is held by his native country; and the eminent men, such as Emerson, Carlyle, Tennyson and others, who have admired his Doctrines.

The Brief then proceeds to give a brief view of CONJUGIAL LOVE, premising, however, that such a task

should not be undertaken when the legitimacy of the Church is to be the penalty of an unskillful, inexact or too thoroughly condensed presentation.... Under such circumstances, a Church might properly insist upon being judged by its doctrines in extenso. The danger of condensation is not to be overlooked for an instant; and we submit that the fact that a religion is not to be lightly treated or made the subject of cursory examination is the underlying thought that has always made our Courts loathe to study or pass judgments on religions.

This statement is supported by a Pennsylvania case (9 Pa. 321), where the Supreme Court refused to determine a question of Presbyterian Doctrine, on the ground that these questions belong to another and higher forum.

But in spite of the limitations of condensation, it seemed necessary to briefly present the scope and purpose of the book CONJUGIAL LOVE, so that the portions quoted by the lower Court might be viewed in their proper relation.

The essence of the first and largest part of the book is then presented by a quotation of No. 457. Swedenborgs distinction between conjugial and conjugal love is then taken up, as given in the paper printed on p. 471, and also his teaching regarding polygamy, adultery, chastity, and scortatory love, pp. 476-478, 483. The Brief then continues:

Swedenborg declares that the acts treated under the second part of this work involve Scortatory Love, that is, the opposite of Conjugial Love, and that Scortatory Love is as much opposed to Civil and Divine Law as Conjugial Love is in conformity with self to the principles or theories which should induce the desire those laws. Not content with mere rules of life, he devotes himself to the principles or theories which should induce the desire for Conjugial Love, and the avoidance of Scortatory Love. And, appreciating the fact that lusts, though always evil, are nevertheless indulged in by man, he proceeds to show the degrees of evil as judged by the Divine Law;

that is, the civil law must necessarily concern itself with deeds, and for that reason degrees cannot be considered, but that the Divine Law considers purpose, intention and end, and considers hereditary influences and environments, and for this reason recognizes degrees of evil which the civil law, bounded by its finite limitations, merely collates, and deals with as evils.

The passages recited by the Court were not indicative of the spirit of the teachings,

whether the extracts are wrenched from the entire book and from the great body of the authors system, by the Trustees, claimants, to attach the Academy, or by the Court itself, for the purposes of assault upon the Church.... The Holy Scriptures themselves could not bear such a system of judicial criticism, and Christianity could be as easily misrepresented.

Cases are then cited (11 S. & R. 394, and Konda, vs. U. S., October, 1907) to show that serious misrepresentations might arise if a mans writings are considered only in part, and not in relation to their general trend.

The particular grievance of the lower Court was that in two short chapters Swedenborg

wrote and taught, a hundred and fifty years ago, that, under certain conditions of life, restricted concubinage or fornication unhallowed by marriage was a less evil in the sight of God than promiscuous sexuality or the unbridled indulgence of lust; that the General Church holds that the book containing these intimations, is, with all of Swedenborgs writings, Divine Revelation, and that the whole body of his teachings on the subject are A part of the Heavenly Doctrine, which has been given in mercy to mitigate and heal the miseries of mankind.

The Court had passed upon a religion, by choosing excerpts, absolutely ignoring the fact that there are fundamental doctrines in the church which, read in connection with these excerpts, would put them in an entirely new and broader light, incapable of the interpretation which has been put upon them.

A single reading of the book would have convinced the Court of the error into which it has fallen. We do not understand the learned auditing judge to insist that his is the only possible interpretation of the doctrines;

and if, as must be admitted, there be other conceivable interpretations,proper, wholesome teachings,we believe there should have been no hesitation in applying that well-founded principle, that the law will presume in favor of what is right; and if, as the learned auditing judge found, conceivable interpretations, proper, each New Churchman is his own interpreter of the principles enunciated by him (Swedenborg) What justification is there for assuming that each free interpreter will embrace an impure rather than a pure construction? No less curious is the fact that, though other doctrines of Swedenborg were presented to the Court which unequivocally negatived the precepts which the Court had read into the doctrines of Conjugial Love, no effort was made to reconcile the passages, no concern was shown to interpret one passage in the light of another; the inevitable result of a keen and serious examination of the doctrines would have involved the utter destruction of the interpretation upon which the judge happened and relied.

The Court had ignored the extracts from THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE, and THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION,

which disaffirm in most positive terms the Courts interpretation. No effort was made to reconcile them. It would seem that these passages, and the great bulk of the book CONJUGIAL LOVE ... have been treated as surplusage.

Swedenborg was entitled to be heard in full. He claimed that his writings were the Word of God, and up to now no one had ever been heard to attack the purity which pervaded them.

The sole purpose, intention, and end of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE is to teach the holiness of Conjugial Love and the sacredness of Marriage. What conceivable motive, then, can be assigned for thus zealously building up with one hand, and ruthlessly demolishing with the other? Was Swedenborg so little of a philosopher or logician that he was unable to see that all his exhortations that men lead holier lives would be utterly nullified if he added, as the auditing judge claims, a grave license to give rein to the promptings of unbridled lust? Was not Swedenborg in possession of common sense? Was he not prompted by rational motives? If he was, what possible end could he have proposed to himself, in the labors of a long and virtuous life, directed supremely to the moral improvement of the race, and under the full faith of a divine commission, while in a single treatise of ninety-four pages he, as the lower Court would have us believe, completely stultifies himself and virtually renders void the salutary effects of scores of volumes of the most elaborate spiritual morality replete with the professed wisdom of angels? The thought is beyond belief!

The Brief then reviews the statement in the opinion that the testators gift was intended as a means for the dissemination of the doctrines laid down in CONJUGIAL LOVE.

A more unjustifiable and unfair statement could not be framed by the most malignant partisan opponent. It illustrates the point of view from which the auditing judge has considered the whole case. The testators gift was not intended for the dissemination of this doctrine. It is distinctly given to an institution to educate young men to teach the doctrines,--the whole body of the doctrines,--Swedenborgianiam in its entirety,--and not any particular subject, volume, page, or paragraph thereof.

The Court had stated that only what was offered in evidence would be considered, but the broader rule of judicial notice should apply in this case, for the doctrines of the New Church were matters which the judicial function supposes the judge to be acquainted with, either actually or in theory. They were capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration, if desired, that no party would think of imposing a falsity on the Court in respect to them.

The auditing judge had, moreover, confounded a doctrine with a practice contrary to law. The central point of his reasoning being the doctrine is contrary to the law and ... Swedenborg so taught.

There is here a most lamentable confusion between the doctrine and the act of fornication. The doctrine is that to be saved man must shun evils, and, in regard to marriage, must shun wandering lusts and desire chaste marriage with one wife; that if by reason of ungovernable salacity, he cannot wholly restrain his lusts, he may still preserve chastity in his thoughts and intentions, if he restrain his lusts within certain bounds, and do this from principles of honorableness and religion. God alone can judge whether or not he is actuated by such principles, no man or body of men can determine this for him, and therefore, as a corollary, no man or body of men can say of any man that he will go to heaven, still less can give him the consolation that in the righteous judgment of the Lord you are pure, etc.

To say that this doctrine is against the law, is tantamount to saying that it is against the law to teach that God will judge men according to their secret ends, a conclusion that is abhorrent to human reason. As well might one decide that it was acting against the law to teach that a man who steals a loaf of bread from the necessity of hunger, might be an honest man. Swedenborg nowhere says, or even remotely intimates, that anyone should violate any civil law. He holds that the act of fornication is against the civil law, and adds that the administrators of the law, recognizing the conditions of things that all lawmakers must recognize, have tolerated a breach of this law within certain more or less restricted limits.

The same distinction had beep pointed out by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (14 Pa. 226 and 54 Pa. 209), where it had been declared that God alone may judge the offenses of the heart, and that the law can do no more than punish open acts.

II. NOT ONLY ARE SWEDENBORGS WRITINGS TO BE CONSIDERED AS A BODY OF SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, AND TO BE JUDGED AS A WHOLE, BUT THEY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FROM THE VIEWPOINT FROM WHICH THEY WERE WRITTEN.

This was treated under three headings.

A. That fornication and adultery are evils.

After quoting from CONJUGIAL LOVE to this effect, the Brief continues:

Swedenborg further teaches that there are degrees of evil; and sexual evil is of a greater or less degree, in proportion to the extent that indulgence in evil operates against the preservation of Conjugial Love in man. That is, if a man is having sexual relations with a woman to whom he is not married the relation is always evil, but it is a greater evil in proportion as it does not tend to preserve within him the elements of, and longing for, love truly conjugial; and it becomes a less evil in the proportion that such relation does tend to preserve within him the elements of, and longing for, love truly conjugial.

Adultery completely destroys conjugial love;

on the other hand, consider an unmarried man, who by reason of inability to marry at the time, has sexual relations with a woman, having in mind, however, the ultimate attainment of a relation involving love truly conjugial; that young mans course, though evil, is the lightest of these evils; his course, though not founded upon conjugial love, is, on the other hand, not destructive of all thought of conjugial love.

B. Swedenborg teaches that his writings, based as he tells us on revelation, concern the spiritual laws and not the relation of men to the civil law.

Here the Brief quotes DIVINE PROVIDENCE, No. 71, showing that man has the freedom to think and will as he pleases, but not to do what he wills, and say what he thinks. CONJUGIAL LOVE, NO. 523, is also quoted showing the meaning of the words Judge not, that ye be not condemned.

The Brief then continues:

An inspection of the book by the most casual reader discloses that its author intends it to be an exposition of the spiritual and Divine laws of order which govern the relation of the sexes in its heavenly, intermediate, or infernal forms.*

* In the Brief at re-argument this paragraph was adduced to show that it was entirely unnecessary to argue or determine whether CONJUGIAL LOVE was a moral or a theological work.

To support this, the headings of the first few chapters of CONJUGIAL LOVE are given, as showing the spiritual and theological treatment, a treatment in every sense religious and distinctly Christian.

The devise was to teach the Doctrines,--all the Doctrines, the entire system,--of Swedenborg. Nowhere do these Doctrines or this system suggest violation of the statute law.

C. Swedenborg teaches that the civil law must be obeyed.

Referring to the statement by the lower Court that doctrines which stimulate a belief that the Lord will excuse that for which the law punishes are dangerous to society, the Brief comments:

We submit that the Court erred in making so broad a statement. Does not every Christian religion teach that very doctrine? By his test, every religion,--all charity,--is dangerous to society.

The argument is introduced by quotations and comment, essentially as given on p. 471; to which the Brief adds that, even judging from the meager quotations made by the Court, it fully appears that there is no encouragement of vice or the social evil.

The so-called teaching that is made the center of attack is hedged all about with qualifications that make unerringly for the general intent, of a clean, wholesome morality, a regard the statutory law and the conservation of a sound public policy. The doctrines illustrate the very loftiest ideals of personal purity and conjugial fidelity; and there is not a single suggestion of infringing any civil obligation or social conventionality.

This is enforced by quotations from CONJUGIAL LOVE as summarized in the Bishops DECLARATION, showing among other things, that it is wisdom to restrain the love of the sex; that with some it cannot be wholly restrained; and that with such persons it ought to be moderated according to principles of honor and morality implanted in the memory and thence in the reason (C. L. 445-6, 450-2; see p. 462).

These teachings were not only not immoral, but they were quite in accord with what

say intelligent man knows to be the almost universal policy of the State, the average experience of man and the prevailing conventionalism and economics of society.

Attention is then called to the teachings concerning CONJUGIAL LOVE as being between one man and one wife, and enduring forever. To conceive that an ideal so exalted involves immorality is beyond comprehension.

Swedenborg held that motive, rather than externals, determined the quality of an act.

He claimed that we should not only avoid wrong, but that we should avoid it for the proper reason. He exhorts men to the love of avoidance, and with a knowledge for the reason of such avoidance. But this the Court had utterly ignored.

Motive, intention, and end are the region in which Swedenborg moves. The question of action, of mans deportment, he leaves to the judgment of the civil law, but, as has been pointed out, he is not satisfied with mere compliance with the civil law. He seeks to establish among men a knowledge of, and a love for, spiritual and eternal marriage, marriage which shall be a marriage of the spirit, a marriage in the sight of Heaven. The civil institution of marriage is already established among men, established by society, by means of its laws and judges and other officials, who will judge and punish the violator and leave untouched him who does not violate, whatever may be the intentions of his heart.

To show that this teaching is not the mere vaporing of a religious mystic or philosophic seer, Mr. Justice Brewer of the United States Supreme Court is quoted as saying:

Two men may come before the criminal bar and in the eyes of the law they are alike, but in the eyes of the Higher Wisdom there is a, world-wide difference. We can never tell what influences, over which they have no control, have molded their character, and a man suffers for the forces of heredity and environment which have made him. I have looked into the faces of alleged criminals tried before me, and, failing to learn what I sought, have been compelled to draw my decision from the definite facts. It is the failure of justice here that causes me to feel sure of the life beyond. In some other time and place the failures of justice on earth will be recognized. Here mercy cannot be tempered with justice. Pardon is not a judicial function; it is a legislative function. In the realm above the same Spirit is judge and executive.*

* In the Brief at re-argument this section of the Brief was added to by a number of quotations from Mr. Worcesters pamphlet on MARRIAGE, see p. 420.

III. THE OBJECT OF THIS TRUST IS TO PROPAGATE THE DOCTRINES OR THEOLOGICAL WRITINGS OF SWEDENBORG;

THE OBJECT OF THE THEOLOGICAL WRITINGS OF SWEDENBORG IS TO ESTABLISH A SYSTEM OF THEOLOGY AND SPIRITUAL MORALITY.

THE OBJECT OF THE BOOK CONJUGIAL LOVE IS THE ESTABLISHMENT AND PRESERVATION OF MARRIAGE AS A SPIRITUAL AND ETERNAL UNION;

THESE OBJECTS NEITHER DEROGATE STATUTES OF THE COMMONWEALTH NOR CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC POLICY AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT;

THE ONLY TEST OF PERNICIOUSNESS OF RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS OR THEIR DEROGATION OF STATUTES, IS WHETHER THEY TEACH RESISTANCE, ANTAGONISM OR OPPOSITION TO THE CIVIL LAW AND PRODUCE, OR TEND TO PRODUCE, VIOLATIONS OF IT. IT IS WHAT MEN DO, NOT WHAT THEY THINK, THAT THE LAW TEACHES.

The first three of these points had already been considered, and it now remained to consider the last two.

The few Pennsylvania precedents relied upon by the lower Court showed that the test of the lawfulness of a creed or school is not in the private opinions taught, but in the public practices.

However antagonistic to existing laws, civil or penal, a theory advanced may be, its teachers and preachers are immune until their teaching or preaching resolves itself into a deliberate, malicious attempt to overthrow an existing civil institution or tends to disturb the public peace, to violate the law or to encourage some one else to do so.

Zeisweiss vs. James (p 239) is shown to be a case where it was proposed to openly revile Christianity Manning vs. Library Company (p. 238) was a case of a bequest by Dr. Rush for a library; and it directed that the institution should publish every ten years certain books by Dr. Rush, which were alleged to contain atheistic teaching.

It was sought to void the devise on the ground that its object was to further infidelity; but the Court refused to do this, and declared that if the primary object of the trust of the will was to disseminate infidel views, it would be declared void, but that in the present case the object, a public library, was one that the law favored.

This very case, cited against the Academy, was in its favor; for if the devise was upheld, how much more reason was there for upholding the Kramph devise.

In the Rush case, while the main object was a beneficent one, a part of the object was the teaching of infidel and atheistic doctrines, whereas the Kramph devise is for the propagation of the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, the purposes of which are highly moral. Even if some of the teachings should be held to be immoral, by certain standards of social economics, nevertheless, as the object of the devise is for the propagation of a system of theology, which is of the highest respectability, ... the devise is good under the law of Pennsylvania.

Other cases cited by the lower Court are analyzed to the same effect, Justice Story of the U. S. Supreme Court being quoted as declaring that a devise for the propagation of any form of infidelity was not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country, and therefore must be made out by a clear and indisputable proof.

Remote inference, or possible results, or speculative tendencies, are not to be drawn or adopted for such purposes. There must be plain, positive, and express provisions, demonstrating not only that Christianity is not to be taught, but that it is to be impugned or repudiated. (Vidal vs. Girard, 2 Howard 127.)

The Brief then turns to the dictum in the Manners case (pp. 239, 304), to show that its true meaning is brought out by substituting succeed in doing for do. A man may succeed in doing many things while living which the law will not do for him after he is dead.

The law will do ALL things for a man after he is dead, that he could legally do while living. In that view, suppose Frederick J. Kramph were living, preaching, and teaching Swedenborgs Doctrine Conjugial Love, of what crime would he be guilty?

What statute applies?

Or take the case in hand. The Academy, incorporated and giving instruction, is teaching the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg. Every minister and every branch of the Church is preaching and teaching them from his pulpit. And yet if this decree is to stand, it must be on the ground that any person teaching these doctrines is amenable to the criminal laws of this Commonwealth.

But even conceding the existence of a doctrine that equity will not enforce a trust whose object is the propagation of atheism, immorality, or hostility to the government, such a doctrine did not apply in the present case,

for it cannot be shown that the object of this trust is the propagation of immorality. The object of this trust is the propagation of the teachings of Swedenborg, and the object of those teachings is to promote morality. Neither this Court, nor any other Court, tribunal, or person has undertaken to claim that the objects of the teachings of Swedenborg are immoral; the objects must be admitted to be moral, even ideal; it is only certain incidents of these teachings that are attacked....Who but an arrant idiot would venture to say that the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg undermined the institution of marriage or tend to discourage chastity?

Where a trust has for its object the furtherance of an existing fundamental civil institution, the incidents to, or the means that make for, the accomplishment of that object are not to be nicely scrutinized by a court of equity. So long as the trust recognizes the institution of religion, it is not to be rejected because it seeks to benefit a form of religion that is not generally accepted; ... so long as a trust recognizes marriage as a fundamental civil institution, even the fact that the means which it suggests for the preservation of this institution are not such as are generally accepted, does not nullify it.

Moreover, the mere fact that the trust may have for its object the promulgation of teachings contrary to the civil laws, does not per se invalidate it, unless those laws embody the fundamental public policy.... Any other position would result in a reductio ad absurdum.

This is illustrated by supposing a legacy for the publication of the writings of a great medical author, which writings contain a single sentence obnoxious to the law in the way that the Court deemed the citation from CONJUGIAL LOVE to be.

It was unimaginable that such a legacy would be stricken down. And what logical difference was there between the teachings of a natural and those of a spiritual physician?

In each instance, this point is to be observed: the author does not oppose the law, but deals entirely outside the law; he is not concerned with law, but with facts; in the one case, it is a fact of physical science, and in the other a fact of spiritual science. In each case he does not urge to any course, but simply states certain conditions.

Would a trust to publish Byrons works, or Walt Whitmans, or Herbert Spencers, etc., be void because of certain things contained in them?

A case is then cited where the Court refused to enjoin a receiver from selling certain books which were alleged to be immoral.

The Court decided that they were standard works, and to condemn them because of a few of their episodes would exclude from circulation many of the most famous works of the great writers of the English language. (62 N. Y. State 115.)

A number of other illustrations were cited to show that the logic of the Decision was to outlaw every society whose object was to change existing laws, such as the divorce laws, the tariff, etc., and several law cases are cited showing that the law does not punish men for erroneous opinions, but only for overt acts.

No man in religious matters is to be subjected of the State or of any public authority; and the State is not to inquire into or to take notice of religious belief, when the citizen performs his duty to the State and to his fellows, and is guilty of no breach of public morals or public decorum. (Cooley on Constitutional Limitations.)

In the present case theories had been attached,

but not a line of testimony was offered to prove or even suggest, that, as a result of teaching these doctrines, there had been a single instance of indulgence in evil or unlawful practices.

Had there been evil results or practices, it may fairly be assumed they would have been brought to the Courts attention, but as has been said, there is not oven a suggestion of that sort in this case, from first to last.

An English case, a trust for propagating the sacred writings of Joanna Southcote, is then cited, where the Court upheld the trust as a charitable trust, and declared that it would make no distinction between one sect and another unless their tenets included doctrines adverse to the foundations of all religion, or subversive of all morality. (31 Beavans Rep. 14.)

Some comparisons are drawn between this case and the case at bar. In the latter the hearing was concluded on Thursday, July 9, 1908, and the lengthy opinion was rendered on the following Monday. In the former the hearing seems to have been on April 28, 1862.

The Master of the Rolls said he must examine the printed works of the founder of this sect before he gave judgment. In delivering his opinion on the 29th of the succeeding month, he said: On the latter point (the claim of immorality and irreligious tendency), being unacquainted with the writings of Joanna Southcote, it became my duty to look into them, for the purpose of satisfying myself on this point.

Numerous cases were cited to show that Courts will not interfere with a trust whose purpose and general tendency is not hostile to religion, law, or morals. Among them was a Canadian case, where a devise to promote the total prohibition of the manufacture of liquor was held to be for a lawful purpose, and not contrary to public policy or morality. It was so held, the Court said, not because he was satisfied that it is or will be a public benefit; but if it was for a public purpose, and that a lawful one, it was not for the Court to frustrate it, the testator being the judge of the benefit of the scheme he seeks to foster. The Court should not interfere, even if dubious of the practical results. (22 Ontario 573.)

And so, commented the Brief, a trust for the propagation of the teachings of Swedenborg should be declared valid and would no more involve an affirmance by the Court of these teachings them the decision just quoted.

All for the Court to decide was that the trust in question is not opposed to marriage and religion.

Another of the cases cited was in the United States Supreme Court, the question before the Court being whether religious belief or injunction was a good defense to a criminal action, based upon the maintenance of polygamous relations. The Court declared that to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty; and it added:

It is time enough for all the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt sets against peace and good order.... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. (98 U. S. 145.)

An English case is also cited, where, in dismissing a contention based on the allegation that the purpose of a certain Rational Society was to propagate immoral and irreligious doctrines,

the Master of the Rolls stated that he had perused the rules of the Society, and that, while he thought the Society was based upon irrational principles, it was not to be considered as founded for the purpose of propagating irrational and irreligious doctrines, in the ordinary sense of the word. (29 Beavans Rep. 589.)

The Brief then entered into a discussion of the rule of public policy, invoked by the lower Court as one of the grounds for its Decision. It laid down the principle that

To declare a trust void, because of public policy, there should appear a clear contravention of the constitutions, laws, or decisions. None of these elements was to he found in the present case.

Cases are then cited to show that the Courts are consistently reluctant to rest decisions on the ground of public policy. The cases show, among other things:

In considering public policy we are not to be governed by our views in the interests of the people.... Such a standard of determination might be varied by the personal opinions of the judges who constitute the Court. The public policy of a nation must be determined by its constitution, laws, and judicial decisions. (58 Fed. Rep. 69).

Vague surmises and flippant assertions, as to what is the public policy of the State, or what would be shocking to the moral sense of the people are not to be indulged in. (12 L. R. Chancery 605.)

That is the best government which guards more vigilantly the freedom of the subject than the rights of the State. (56 Am. Dec. 164, 169.)

IV. IF THE JUDICIAL DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN THIS OPINION IS SUSTAINED, EVERY RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH IS AT THE MERCY OF EACH INDIVIDUAL JUDGES VIEW OF WHAT IS PUBLIC POLICY.

The proposition was startling, but nevertheless justified by the facts of the case.

An institution of learning which teaches the doctrines of a. Church whose founder a hundred and fifty years ago entertained and expressed opinions ... touching the relations of the sexes at variance with the statute of Pennsylvania today, is ineligible to receive a bequest, ... even though the Church and institution do not teach resistance to or violation of the civil law, but simply teach, at most, that under certain physical conditions, an act which is a minor misdemeanor in Pennsylvania, may not be a mortal sin before God....

Let this principle become one of general application and enforcement, and scarcely any Christian church could survive, nor its founder be spared, if, indeed, the Church Universal could stand; few of the great names in classic literature or art would abide; not a religious society in the Commonwealth can bear the strain.

The Quakers and other denominations are cited, whose teachings are in conflict with public policy, and derogate those statutes which impose upon the citizen the duty of military service.

Nevertheless, essential as is this policy,... rational freedom of conscience has been considered still more essential, and hence none of these denominations has ever been denied the right of inheritance, even though their members ... also practiced this their article of faith. If Swedenborgs teaching on certain subjects is contrary to statutes and public policy,... the Swedenborigians, therefore, rightfully might claim that discrimination against them constitutes an act of religious persecution.

Other denominations are cited to the same effect, among them the Christian Scientists, who, in refusing to call in regular practitioners, are constantly open to the charge of malpractice. In rare cases, individuals may have been punished for this, but the denomination as a whole has never been outlawed, nor bequests to it questioned.

Again, the Mormons, while no longer permitted to practice their polygamous doctrines, have the full protection of the law in believing it.

These illustrations, the Brief continues, have been brought to the notice of the Court in order to show how many things contrary to the law are permitted by conventionalism, and to contrast with this toleration the decision of the auditing judge, who outlaws a church which is in every respect law abiding and whose members teach and encourage the carrying out of all duties of the citizen to the State.

In this connection a canon of the Council of Toledo, A. D. 400, is cited, teaching that if a man had a concubine he was excommunicated, but if his concubine is instead of a wife, and he adheres to her alone, whether she be called a wife or a concubine, he is not rejected from communion. This canon, says Fleury, shows that there were concubines approved by the Church.

Luthers letter to the Landgrave of Hesse is quoted, where he says:

If a married man, detained captive in a distant country, should there take a second wife in order to preserve or recover his health, or if his own be leprous, we see not how we could condemn ... such a man, as, by the advice of his pastor should take another wife, provided it were not with the design of introducing a new law, but with an eye only to his peculiar necessities.

In the Brief, at re-argument, the quotation is continued as follows:

Your Highness hath therefore in this writing, not only the approbation of us all, in case of necessity, concerning what you desire, but also the reflections we have made thereon. We beseech you to weigh them as becoming a virtuous, wise, and Christian prince. We also beg of God to direct all for His glory, and your Highnesss salvation.

It is no extraordinary thing for princes to keep concubines; and though the vulgar should be scandalized thereat,... prudent persons would approve of this moderate bind of life as preferable to adultery and other brutal actions. There is no need for being much concerned for what men will say, provided all goes right with the conscience. So far do we approve it, in those circumstances by us specified. (Boussuets VARIATIONS, Vol. I, pp. 231, et seq.)

In the Brief, at re-argument, the quotation is continued as follows:

As to what your Highness says, that it is not possible for you to abstain from this impure life, we wish you mere in a better state before God, that you lived with a secure conscience, and labored for the salvation of your own soul and the welfare of your subjects. But if, after all, your Highness is fully resolved to marry a second wife, we judge it ought to be done secretly, as we have said with respect to the dispensation demanded on the same account, that is, that none but the person you shall wed, and a few trusty persons, know of the matter, and they too obliged to secrecy under the seal of confession. Hence no contradiction or scandal of moment is to be apprehended.

And yet (the Brief continues) the very kind of concubinage here favored by Luther is condemned by Swedenborg as being nothing but adultery.

Nevertheless a bequest to the Lutheran Church, which still publishes Luthers writings, had never been challenged.

The Brief then notes that the Bible, believed by most Christians to be Divinely inspired as to every word and letter, contains many laws, which, if literally applied, would conflict with modern statutes and public policy.

There are, for instance, certain laws concerning concubinage, which would be actually destructive of Christian morality; whereas the teachings found in Swedenborgs work on CONJUGIAL LOVE all make for morality.

Under the present ruling, whether they did or did not practice these laws, no Jewish or Christian Church or institution could receive a bequest, because they still possess, read, and teach the book in which these laws are contained.

It might be suggested that the Old Testament was written thousands of years ago, and CONJUGIAL LOVE one hundred and -fifty years ago; but there was no more proof

that those who read and teach it sanction or inspire any immoral or illegal practices, than there was that the Catholic cherishes treason, the Quaker plots hostility to the government, the Lutheran promotes adultery, the Jew Sabbath breaking. But why prolong the argument? Because hundreds of passages can be detached from the Old and New Testament, each of which might be construed as derogatory to some Pennsylvania statute, or against modern public policy, would he not be worse than an idiot, who would declare a bequest void if it was found to be for an institution established to teach the doctrines of the Holy Bible?

Against this contention, based on centuries of historical experience and judicial precedents, and illustrated by copious examples of the logical consequences of the Decree, what answer had been made in the final Decree?

At best it is a feeble apology for a manifest blunder; at most, the last state of the judicial mind is considerably worse than the first.

The first Opinion had been written in three days, and the preparation of its defense had occupied two months, and the Decree itself showed that no attempt had been made to obtain any conception of the scope of Swedenborgs doctrines.

Indeed, frank avowal is made that even with the first part of CONJUGIAL LOVE this Court has nothing to do. To protect itself from the charge of having selected only certain portions, the Court says that the selections made for the Court ... were confined exclusively to the ... second part of CONJUGIAL LOVE. This not candid, for the Court was given the whole work, and was most emphatically asked to read the whole before coming to a decision. As though anticipating the charge that he has neglected the first part, the auditing judge says: We will now of our own motion, make some short quotations from the neglected first part of CONJUGIAL LOVE. Then follow twenty-five short quotations, three of which are from the second part of the work. The superficial character of his study of the subject is further illustrated by the fact that the quotations, made professedly from a reading of the first part of CONJUGIAL LOVE, were hastily drawn from the index appended to the work. [See p. 298.]

The Courts own extracts from Swedenborg show that they relate only to mans moral obligations, and have no reference to his obligations to the civil law; yet the whole question had been treated by the Court as if he had been trying one accused of practices, instead of dealing with a bequest to an institution teaching it as a mere incident in a great system of religion.

It may be conceded that Swedenborg permitted things which the law reprobates, and prohibited things which the law tolerates; but, as already shown, many religious and most reform associations do the same things.

There is nothing so especially sacred about the laws of sexual relations as to make them immune from criticism. As a matter of practical experience, too, there are few laws more frequently broken and none whose violators are so seldom prosecuted and so leniently regarded.

The Brief then notes the Courts statement that if some testator should provide for the teaching of some incontinent writings from the Bible, the devise ought to be stricken down.

No such selections had been made. Mr. Kramph had not endowed an institution to teach Swedenborgs views on concubinage and fornication. These teachings were only incidental, because Swedenborgs writings are not especially concerned with that point, and because of their comprehension of all human and Divine institutions. But the narrow view of the Court below was that the testator founded an institution to teach the necessity of concubinage.

Although the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE had been widely circulated, nothing had ever been offered in evidence to indicate any pernicious result of the teaching of Swedenborgs Doctrines.

There is no charge in the record or testimony in this case that followers of Swedenborg are guilty of breaking or attempting to break the civil laws of the land. There is nothing in the record (and the Academy of the New Church challenges the world to show anything more than the record shows) that those instructed within its walls or within the sphere of its usefulness are leading other than highly moral lives....There is not one line to show that the theological, the moral, or the social teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg, or those of the Academy, encourage or countenance immorality in any degree whatsoever.

The question now was not one of money, but of religious freedom, and this, not only for the followers of Swedenborg, but for all the citizens of the State.

The constitution of the United States and of the State, and the decisions of the Courts lay down the rule of law that, as long as there is no deliberate, malicious attempt to revile Christianity, no practice or encouragement of acts contrary to good morals and public policy, our citizens shall be free to hold and teach such truths as they conscientiously believe to be for the advancement of the human race. To decide that this devise is void on the ground that the doctrines laid down in the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg are immoral, would be not only to make the entire New Jerusalem Church an outcast in Pennsylvania, but would involve the religious liberty of every citizen of the State. It would subvert principles that were coeval with the founding of the Commonwealth and have remained unshaken to this day.

Brief by Mr. Burnham.

The Brief was followed by two appendices, the first being a copy of Mr. Kramphs Will, and the second an argument prepared by Hugh L. Burnham, Esq. A summary of the latter follows:

The argument opens with the statement of the essential law governing the case.

Mere matters of opinion or doctrine are never amenable to the law. The law does not and cannot control mere matters of opinion or doctrine.

The law does not undertake to regulate or restrain the teaching of doctrines or opinions unless the end and purpose of those teachings is to destroy one or more of the fundamental or essential civil institutions.

Among the fundamental and essential civil institutions are established Government, Christianity, and Marriage.

FIRST. Teaching of doctrine or opinion against established government.

If the end and, purpose of the teaching is the destruction of the government itself, a devise having as its object such teaching would properly be declared void; but if the object be the teaching as a matter of opinion or doctrine, anti-slavery, anti-tariff, etc., or even that a monarchy is preferable to republic, or that the Senate should be abolished, or in fact, any other opinion or doctrine not detrimental to the government, the devise would be declared legal.

SECOND. Teaching of Doctrine against Christianity.

If the end and purpose of the teaching is the denial of the existence of God, a devise having as its object such teaching will properly be declared void; but a devise will not be declared void whose object is the teaching, as a matter of opinion or doctrine, that there are three Gods, or any other opinion which has not for its object the denial or derision of God.

THIRD. Teaching of Doctrine or Opinion against Marriage.

If the end and purpose of the teaching is the destruction of the essential civil institution of monogamical marriage, a devise having as its object such teaching will properly be declared void; but a devise would not be declared void if it were for the teaching, as a matter of opinion or doctrine, that the causes of divorce should be restricted or enlarged, or that the control of the social evil should be by the licensing of prostitution instead of by statutes indiscriminately prohibiting and punishing adultery and fornication, or any other doctrine or opinion relating to marriage and the social evil, which does not have for its end and purpose the destruction of the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman.

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS ONE OF TEACHING ONLY.

There was no charge of acts of immorality, and the Court would take judicial notice of the fact that the Swedenborgian Church is a well recognized church of high standing, and good repute throughout Christendom.

In view of the principles laid down above, it was necessary, therefore, to ascertain whether the intent and purpose of the Doctrines of Swedenborg is to destroy the civil institution of marriage.

In this case, it is the Doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg themselves which are to be examined, and not what his followers may for the time being believe, or not believe, or teach or not teach, concerning them.

IT IS THE CHARACTER OF THE DOCTRINES THEMSELVES WHICH IS THE POINT AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE.

For the devise was indisputably to an institution to teach the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

That the Court might see the character of these Doctrines, a brief statement of them is presented as they are taught or referred to in CONJUGIAL LOVE, references being added to others of the writings where the particular Doctrine is fully treated of.

CONJUGIAL LOVE was the only one of Swedenborgs works that had been offered in evidence, but the Court would take judicial notice of his other writings.

Doctrines of the New Church.*

* The Statement of Doctrine was prepared by the Rev. W. B. Caldwell.

The summary of the Doctrines is premised by the statement that the writings of Swedenborg assert that they are a Divine Revelation, and that they are accepted as such by the members of the New Church.

The Doctrines of the New Church are then presented under five heads:

1. That there is one God, and the Lord Jesus Christ is that God, 2. That the Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, in which there is a spiritual sense now revealed in the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg 3. That the Lords Church is in those who believe in Him, and live according to His Word. 4. That there is a Spiritual world, and a life after death, and that there is a heaven and a hell. 5. The faith by which man is to be saved is to believe in the Lord, and live according to the truths of His Word.

These points are then taken up and treated in considerable detail, with specific references to CONJUGIAL LOVE, to which other and more general references are added.

The argument concluded with a series of questions in the Socratic style, asking what was the end and purpose of these Doctrines? Was it not the salvation of the human race, and the reducing to order of the lives of men upon earth by means of truth rationally stated? Did not these doctrines breathe reverence for God and the Sacred Scripture, and the faithful performance of every act of life? Did they not teach the shunning of evils as sins?

Should an entire system of theology, of a high moral standard, be condemned as immoral, and outlawed, because a single doctrine thereof expresses a different opinion from the consensus of opinion prevailing at this day in this State, as to the treatment of an evil, concerning the treatment of which there is so great a diversity of opinion among Christian States, unless it clearly appears that the end and purpose, or the probable consequence of such teaching, is to increase immoral acts among those who believe and accept that system of theology as a Divine Revelation?

Is it not manifest that the chapters on Fornication and Concubinage,... are written, not for the purpose of destroying or impairing the institution of marriage, not for the purports of encouraging immorality, but that they are addressed to men who will look to and desire to come into genuine morality?

Could it be said that the intent, or probable consequences of the teaching of these Doctrines, would tend to increase immorality among those who accept Swedenborgs writings in their entirety?

Is not the question now before the Court practically the matter of the difference of opinion as to the manner of treating the social evil, which is an ever-prevailing problem, which from its very nature can be but little affected, controlled, or repressed by civil law, and which will be effectively reached only through the enlightened teachings of religion and morality?...

Is it not apparent that the opinions as expressed in the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg are not expressed with an evil intent?

Is it not apparent that the probable consequences of the teaching will not be evil? The Swedenborgian Church has now existed in this country and in England for over one hundred years, and the Court will take judicial notice of the fact that the general reputation of that Church and its members has never been a matter of reproach; to which may be added that the Court will presume men innocent until they are proven to be guilty, and it is a significant fact that in the ease at bar, there is not only no charge of ACTS, notwithstanding the fact that, as the Court may see from the records, there exists a disposition on the part of some of the claimants which would have led to the introduction of proof of any acts of immorality chargeable to these teachings, had any such acts have occurred.

Brief for the Trustees.

After setting forth that the lower Court had found no difficulty in awarding bequests to the Lancaster Society or the German Universities, although one of these bequests was to be applied for disseminating the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem, the Brief continues that the Trustees had resisted the Academy because that institution was not entitled to receive, and because it was the right of the Trustees to receive and retain the bequest, for the purpose, when sufficient accumulations should be in their hands, of endowing a university of the New Jerusalem, to be founded in the consolidated City of Philadelphia, etc.

The lower Court, however, had held that the Academy was entitled to take, but that the residuary clause was to promote immorality, and was therefore invalid. The Trustees

have concern, of course, at the defeat of the testamentary intention to found a university for universal New Church education, but are wounded beyond measure at the stigma which has been placed upon them by the learned adjudicating judge by his finding that the Church which they love is intended to disseminate immorality.... Nowhere in the history of litigation can be found so sweeping a condemnation of a Church and of those who promulgate its doctrines as is to be found in the adjudication in the present cause.

The devise had been declared void, because among Swedenborgs writings was CONJUGIAL LOVE, which teaches doctrines repugnant to the law of the land, and to accepted public policy.

The particular writings referred tot constituted only about twenty pages of the one hundred and forty-nine writings of Swedenborg, and the learned adjudicating judge

condemns the whole Doctrines of the New Jerusalem, because of what he thinks he finds in these few pages (which it may be remarked in passing contain no doctrinal matter), although, as he says, he has not considered any other portion of the works which constitute the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem.

He refused to examine these, but read the few pages which he condemned without the explanatory context, which shows how thoroughly those detached passages were in accord with morality and law.

All members of one of the Churches of the world are condemned as believers in the practice of immorality, without any examination of the Doctrines, or of anything more than a few pages of the writings, stripped of context.

Not content with this, the learned judge had deemed it proper, without a word of justification, to condemn the character of the founder of the New Church, saying:

From this it would logically follow that Swedenborg was unable to nourish his soul with the essential purity, and therefore was lacking the attributive adjunct important in the highest degree for a complete comprehension of the conjugial,--because he never was married. This would be an explanation of his doctrine that CONJUGIAL LOVE may be derived through fornication, and that the love of marriage and chastity may be preserved if the love of the sex be restrained to one mistress.

He had also very unnecessarily cited Kants statement that the ARCANA COELESTIA was pure nonsense, and Lydstons, that Swedenborg was insane (see p. 307).

Not sharing with the learned judge his fondness for Kant, it may not be amiss to say that we cannot find the citation, which is not from any designated page or volume of his works.

The Brief then quotes from Kants DREAMS OF A SPIRIT-SEER, to the effect that Swedenborg was a rational, agreeable, open-hearted man, and a savant.

De Quincy, Carlyle, Phillips Brooks and others are also quoted in praise of Swedenborg.

After this introduction the argument proceeds under ten propositions.

I. THE ACADEMY OF THE NEW CHURCH IS NOT, IN ANY EVENT, ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE RESIDUARY ESTATE.

After quoting from Section 15 of the Will, the Brief adds:

It scarcely admits of any doubt that the testators intention was, that the incorporation should be under the supervision of the Trustees of his will.

It was not his intent that persons having no connection with his estate should, at any time suitable to themselves, without consultation with, or superintendence by, the Trustees, obtain a charter formulated by themselves, and then demand on behalf of the corporation the transfer to it of the property. Even if there be no positive direction, the necessary implication is that the testator desired the Trustees named by him to procure an incorporation in accordance with his wishes and direction, as they were bound to carry out the same.

In oral argument, Mr. Johnson put this point more fully: The Trustees are

to take this estate for the purpose of endowing a university ... for certain specific purposes, and they are to have the body of Trustees chartered, so that they should be made perpetual. If, when the time comes to distribute his estate, they have not had this charter formed and have not had this body of Trustees under which this university is to be made a perpetual body incorporated, then it is to be paid to these individual Trustees; and if they have formed a corporation, it is to go over to the university. So that you see the testator was not shooting at a blind mark. He was not providing that anybody should step in and walk away with this money.

The Brief continues:

The University was to be one founded with his funds, and their accumulations, with funds raised by subscription or endowment of other contributors sufficient to yield the stipulated income.

It certainly was not his intent that a corporation for other purposes, and controlled by those who could seek to further them, should, or could, demand the payment to it of his residuary estate.

Until 1891, the General Convention was the body with which the Swedenborgian societies were to a large extent affiliated. In 1891 there had been a split or secession of the General Church. But the Court had refused to allow Mr. Coyle to go into the question of the secession (see p. 151).

Mr. Doerings testimony as to the secession is then quoted, and also his testimony that the doctrine in question was taught to young men and young women* (see pp.174-5).

* The subsequent withdrawal of this testimony is not noticed.

The Court had not permitted this witness to be asked

whether there was any difference between the teachings of the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem as found in the writings of Swedenborg and as taught by the bodies adhering to the General Convention, which was in existence in 1858, when Mr. Kramph died, and the teachings of those doctrines by the General Church. [See pp. 164, 167.]

Mr. Doerings testimony is further quoted as to the names of the General Church, and as to its affiliation with the Academy and it is noted that the Court had not permitted the witness to testify as to whether or not antecedently to the secession there was not a governing body of the Swedenborgian Church known as the General Convention in the United States. It was by this seceding General Church that the Academy was organized.

The purposes of the Academy, as shown in Article II, of its Charter, are then contrasted with the requirements laid down by the testator. The corporation contemplated by him was

to be founded in the consolidated City of Philadelphia (the italics are ours), for universal New Church education in these United States, and for the education of New Church ministers who are to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem se laid down in the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg.

The Academy incorporated was stated to be for promoting education in all its forms; educating young men for the ministry. It was also incorporated for the purpose of publishing boobs, pamphlets, and other printed matter, and establishing a library. It was also intended, it was stated, to establish the New Church signified in the Apocalypse,--something we do not understand.

Whilst the place of business and office, of the corporation was to be in the City of Philadelphia, the Academy ... is located in Montgomery County, at Bryn Athyn, though the testator directed that the University he desired to be incorporated was to be founded in the consolidated City of Philadelphia.

The learned judge expressed the opinion that the objection the Trustees made to the Academy was that it taught too many of the Doctrines of Swedenborg. The objection really made was that it insisted upon an interpretation of those doctrines which was not in accord with that of the Church of the New Jerusalem, as the same existed at the time Kramph died....

If there be anything immoral in any of the teachings of the doctrines of Swedenborg, it is in those of the Academy. The condemnation, as we will presently show, of the Church of the New Jerusalem, in which the learned judge indulged, was because of his deductions from what is taught by the Academy of the General Church....

It is the Academys interpretation which largely led to the judges condemnation. The interpretation by the General Convention, as we will show, is one concerning which there can be no possible allegation of immorality.

Why then hold that a body (the Academy) incorporated entirely outside of the will, is the only one to take; then prevent that body from taking because of the alleged immorality of its teachings; and then exclude those who do not thus teach, to whom the estate is devised, because the Academy cannot take?

In oral argument, Mr. Johnson put this point as follows:

They did not form this Academy under the direction of the Trustees, or by their approval. They got up the Academy on their own account, and having gotten it up and having run it on their own account, and having nothing on earth to do with these Trustees, they came and claimed this fund as against the Trustees named in the will; and the judge held that they were entitled to it, as he said, not because they did not teach the writings of Swedenborg, but because they taught too many of them, missing the whole point of the controversy, which was, not that they were not both teaching the doctrines of Swedenborg, but that they entirely differed in their interpretation.

The Brief continues:

We submit, that unless the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, as laid down in the Writings of Swedenborg, are, as a whole, immoral, the Trustees must take (1) because the Academy was not created in pursuance of, or under the directions of the will, but for another purpose; (2) because the University of the Academy is not located in the place, Philadelphia, in which the testator directed it should be established; and (3) because its teachings are those, not of the original, but of a seceding branch of the Church of the New Jerusalem.

Before concluding what we desire to say under this head, we make the general observation, that the fundamental difference between the General Church and the General Convention is, that the latter believes the doctrine of Swedenborg to be that all sexual relations outside of marriage are evil and forbidden by Divine commandment and to be shunned as sins;

whilst the former claims, not that certain sexual relations outside of the marriage relation are good, but that they are not evil or to be shunned as sins, under certain circumstances.

The oral argument defined the difference as follows:

The General Convention interpreted his doctrines to mean that any relations between the sexes outside of marriage were evil, but that it might be better to do some evil than to do much worse evils which he pictured. The Academy idea was that, under certain circumstances,--and they so interpret one of the Swedenborg books,--the relations of the sexes outside of marriage were not evil. They do not recommend it, they do not press it, but they were not evil; and the split was as to whether they were evil or not.

The Brief continues:

The difference between the two is, not that one does and the other does not, believe in the writings of Swedenborg; but that one interprets those writings in a way which the learned judge seemed to think justified a charge of immorality, whilst the other does not.

It was a member of the Academy, not of the General Convention, who testified that the teaching of the Academy included the permission of carnal intercourse between man and woman outside of the marriage state, when there had been a separation. He concluded:

Q. Then you teach the doctrine that if a man separates from his wife, he is permitted to have carnal intercourse with other women? A. Not indiscriminately, no, sir. Q. With a woman to whom he is not married? A. Yes, sir, when he is separated from his wife. I will substantiate that by giving this book in evidence.

No book, however, was given in evidence which did substantiate this statement.

No evidence was given, notwithstanding the undeserved insinuation concerning Dr. Worcester, the elder, that the General Convention interpreted the doctrine of Swedenborg as justifying, as being not evil, any such intercourse.

The intent of the testator had been destroyed, and the New Church, as the same had been established during the lifetime of Kramph and continued for thirty years thereafter, had been deprived of the testamentary benefit, not because of anything it did or taught, but because of an interpretation put upon the writings of Swedenborg by a body organized after the testators decease.

The final Decree is then quoted to the effect that the theological schools of the New Church teach CONJUGIAL LOVE, and that the testator intended to have it taught, and to have it taught as the Academy teaches it, for its teaching seems to logically conserve the doctrine as laid down by Swedenborg, and the Brief comments:

Whilst the book CONJUGIAL LOVE is in the curriculum of the General Convention Theological School in Cambridge, the section on Scortatory Love is not taught there, or anywhere, by any of the Convention societies, as a book of conduct for the Church, but simply a discussion of evils forbidden by the Divine Commandment and to be shunned.

Such use of the book seemed to be within the learned judges idea of what would be right, because he concluded his first Opinion with an excerpt from what had been said by this [the Supreme] Court, to the effect that Christianity and sound morality did not require that the student of theology shall be debarred access to all books that may be regarded as objectionable (see p. 240).

[There was a footnote here but it was not referenced in the text above.]
* Manners vs. Library, see p. 240.

II. THE DEDUCTIONS OF THE LEARNED JUDGE, DEROGATORY TO THE NEW JERUSALEM CHURCH, ARE LARGELY DRAWN FROM PRINCIPLES ADVOCATED BY THE ACADEMY OF THE CHURCH, AND NOT BY THE CHURCH OF NEW JERUSALEM,--THE GENERAL CONVENTION,--TO WHICH THE TRUSTEES UNDER THE KRAMPH WILL BELONG.

The learned judge quotes a few pages only from the second part of ... CONJUGIAL LOVE. His quotations, which are so largely, that we may say they are almost entirely, from the DECLARATION of principles by the Joint Council of the General Church of the New Jerusalem, form a declaration with which the General Convention dose not in any of the condemned particulars agree.

An excerpt from this DECLARATION is then given, defining the three degrees in the relations of the sexes, which are recognized by the Doctrines, namely, marriage for eternity, marriage in time for time, and a relation that is analogous to marriage. The Brief adds: There is no acknowledgment by the General Convention of any relation analogous to marriage. It condemns as evil any other relation than that of marriage. This Declaration had been again printed in full in the second Opinion of the lower Court, devoting but a very small portion of the Opinion to quotations from CONJUGIAL LOVE.

In the very beginning of his second Opinion, the Court had also quoted from the testimony of an officer of the Academy, without calling attention to the fact that this testimony is claimed by the General Convention to be contrary to the real teachings of Swedenborg.

He makes a very large quotation from a book written by one, Odhner, an Academy professor, giving the writers interpretation (the same as that of the Academy) of the condemned portion of CONJUGIAL LOVE. A large quotation is also given from another Academy professor, Acton. What these gentlemen say, however, is in direct conflict with what is asserted by the General Convention to be the meaning of Swedenborg, and the whole of his doctrinal teaching.

He refers to a purported stenographic report by one, Alden, of a lecture long ago delivered by the Rev. John Worcester.

An instantaneous glance shows that this can hardly be a stenographic report, and that, omitted therefrom, are many passages which beyond doubt mould be explanatory of what, denuded from its context, may seem slightly doubtful.

Insufficient as are the extracts from this lecture, there is still enough to show that what is spoken of and condemned as permission is not a permission in the sense of acknowledgment of right, but of permission without sanction.

The Brief then quotes from Mr. Aldens notes, showing the Rev. John Worcesters teachings as to permissions, and that concubinage, though an evil, is better than promiscuous fornication (see p. 210), after which it continues:

What he meant to say, was, not that it would be right for a spiritual man, but that it would be better for one who was so much in evil that the lesser evil would be a restraint upon what otherwise he would do, to commit it, preferentially to the greater.

In this is to be found the true explanation of all that Swedenborg has said which has been so much condemned.

He starts with the clearest possible statement that all forms of adultery, including fornication and concubinage, are evil; and that indulgence in any of such forms is evil. Recognizing, of course, the evil, he says, to those who cannot be restrained, that it is better for them to choose the milder, than the graver form of evil. He says that in the hope that by a partial restraint, they may be saved, to be led ultimately into good.

All the denunciation, amounting almost to vituperation, with which this Church has been visited, when the doctrine of Swedenborg is understood, is denunciation leveled at his statement of a fact which few can question, i. e., that a lesser is better than a greater evil...

Will anyone say, if we start with the statement that it is evil, that it is not better for a man of unrestrainable passion to visit a brothel than to commit rape, or adultery with a married woman. Does a writer who makes a statement of his belief in accordance with this idea, deserve to be denounced and his followers held up to the world as believers in immorality? Can what they say, under any view, be treated as the statement of a church doctrine?

By a singular misunderstanding of the pages he condemns, the learned judge seems to think that Swedenborg inculcated the idea that conjugial love should be maintained by fornication, when all he did say was that it would be more likely to be maintained by a lesser evil, and that it was better to pursue it rather than the greater.

The REPORT OF THE MINISTERS OF THE NEW CHURCH, unanimously adopted in 1879, showed their understanding of Swedenborgs teaching. This Declaration expressly states that fornication is an evil, but less evil than some other forms of sexual intercourse; and

that fornication, pellicacy, and concubinage, of every kind and degree, are evil in the sight of the Lord, but are permitted as a temporary means of escape from worse evils.... And in this way those who could not otherwise be restrained, may be kept in a state in which they be reformed.

That one is in the full love of the Church only so far as he is in pure conjugial love, and shuns and abominates all extra-conjugial loves; since the life of the church is spiritual and according to Divine Order.

And yet the Trustees who wish a University to be established in pursuance of the Will of the testator to further education in the Doctrines of the Church as thus understood, are met with a frustration of the testamentary design upon a finding that the Church is immoral.

III. THE TRUSTEES, UNDER THE KRAMPH WILL, ALONE ARE ENTITLED TO TAKE. THEIR CLAIM CANNOT BE DEFEATED BY A DISCUSSION, OR CONDEMNATION OF THE PRINCIPLES ADVOCATED BY THE ACADEMY OF THE NEW CHURCH.

The preceding argument is referred to as supporting this proposition. There was no devise to the Academy, or the General Church. The Academy is not entitled, even though its teaching could not be condemned as leading to immorality.

If, however, the Academy would be otherwise entitled, but cannot take by reason of the immorality which would result from its teachings, there can be no reason why the Trustees shall not hold the fund, in order that they may endow a university, under the auspices of the New Church of the New Jerusalem, as it existed before the secession, which acts upon an interpretation, which leads to no immorality, and which is the proper one.

IV. THE LEARNED JUDGE DID NOT ASCERTAIN FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE WHOLE BODY OF WRITINGS OF SWEDENBORG WHAT THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW JERUSALEM AS LAID DOWN IN SAID WRITINGS WERE, BUT CONFINED HIS EXAMINATION, ERRONEOUSLY, TO A FEW PAGES OF ONLY ONE OF SAID WRITINGS.

The few pages quoted by the lower Court

are imbedded in a context of many hundred pages, in which Swedenborg puts in the dearest possible way that all forms of sexual intercourse outside the marriage relation are evil.

We are dealing with a translation. Some put upon the original words an interpretation other than unlawful. If we read the pages, in connection with the context, we find that all that is said, is, that it is better that a man who cannot restrain himself from the greater forms of evil, and will not restrain himself from such forms, should commit less evil, and that he would be more likely to repent in the future, if he pursued a milder form. There exists no warrant for the assertion, or claim, that Swedenborg advises anyone to indulge in concubinage or fornication, or tells him it will be right so to do.

What was meant by not unlawful? If he intended to state a fact, that these forms of vice were not unlawful under the law of Sweden, are we prepared to gainsay the statement? The law by which morality was regulated in the eighteenth century was not that prevailing in the twentieth. Put upon the word unlawful any interpretation possible and we cannot deduce what the learned judge did, i. e., an advocacy by Swedenborg of anything violative of law.

Does it not seem an approach to nonsense, to condemn a man who said, in the eighteenth century, living in a. foreign country, that there and then, certain forms of vice were not unlawful, as advocating their pursuit? How could any man be said to teach immorality by making such a statement?

To say, in the present day, that certain forms of vice are not unlawful, would not amount to an advocacy of the same, but simply to a misstatement of law. What was the law in the eighteenth century in Sweden? The learned judge has displayed most commendable learning,learning that made him familiar even with the emendations of Krafft-Ebing, a professor, as he tells us, in the University at Vienna, of psychiatry. It would have been helpful to us if he had extended his researches sufficiently far to inform us of the law of Sweden on the subject of fornication, before condemning Swedenborg for a statement, possibly concerning the law, which, he says, struck at the basis of social order.

The learned judge puts the Rev. Dr. Seward, the President of the General Convention, as drawing a distinction in this matter between teaching laws of order instead of laws of permission only.

The permission, however, which was referred to by the Rev. Dr. Seward, was the permission of the Lora to a man to commit certain evils in preference to committing greater ones. The word permission was not used in the sense of making right; but of an allowance without sanction.

This was evident from his letter printed in LAWS OF ORDER, condemning as a reduction to absurdity the idea that it really is one of the laws of order to preserve the conjugial, that a man shall commit fornication.

The record afforded no warrant for the statement in the Decree that among Swedenborg's most conspicuous writings is CONJUGIAL LOVE. Nor was there the slightest reason to suppose that Mr. Kramph had in his mind any special desire to promulgate the few pages of CONJUGIAL LOVE. As shown by the Decree itself, Mr. Kramph intended a school which would teach the Doctrines found in the writings of Swedenborg; but the idea of the judge had been that this intention was that everything in the one hundred and forty-nine volumes of Swedenborgs writings should be taught in the contemplated university in such a way that a few pages of CONJUGIAL LOVE, with their supposed iniquity, should be given such prominence as to submerge everything else. That the lower Court had paid attention to those few pages only, and to nothing else written by Swedenborg, was evident from the Decree.

We lay no claim (he had said) to learning in Swedenborg philosophy.... Only that which was offered in evidence is considered.

The whole book of CONJUGIAL LOVE was before us. The other one hundred and forty-eight volumes were not offered, therefore our opportunities were limited.

The Court, moreover, had admitted the correctness of the statement that he questioned the teachings of Swedenborg, but had denied that he had presumed to decide what Swedenborg taught, and to pass upon theological doctrines (p. 296). Thus, continued the Brief, we

have the learned judge admitting that he defeated a testamentary gift for the purpose of teaching the doctrines of a church as evidenced by the writings, one hundred and forty-nine in number, most of them doctrinal,* of Swedenborg, although he had read only a few pages of one of them, not doctrinal. Upon this admission, we rest our argument under this proposition.

* The one hundred and forty-nine works of Swedenborg include almost everything he wrote, scientific and philosophical, as well as theological.

In oral argument an additional point was made, namely, that the burden to present the whole doctrine

was not on us. The testator presumptively established a relation on the part of this Church that entitled it to receive the bequest; and if they wanted to show that the Church was immoral, it would not do to present a few pages; it was their duty to show that the doctrines of the Church were immoral.... The learned judge puts almost every stigma that he can upon the followers of that church and the church itself and its doctrines, and tells you, I have not read the doctrine.

What he read was what has been read to you here from Bishop Pendleton on the Academy side, from Odhner and others,* whose interpretation of the Swedenborgian writings is denounced by the Trustees and the General Convention of the Church to which they belong.

* These others include Swedenborgs CONJUGIAL LOVE, not to mention the Reports of 1879 and 1903, Mr. Sewards Saving Power, and Mr. McGeorges Brief.

V. THE FEW PAGES OF THE BOOK ON CONJUGIAL LOVE, CONDEMNED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE, DID NOT DISCUSS A THEOLOGICAL SUBJECT, AND INVOLVED NO TEACHING OF, OR CONCERNING, THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW JERUSALEM.

After quoting from the will, the purpose of the bequest, the Brief notes that

the university is not required to teach the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg. All that is required of it is, that it shall be one for universal New Church education in these United states, and for the education of New Church ministers.

Each of the New Church ministers, when he had been educated, will teach the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem, as laid down in said writings, the same shall be interpreted by him, because, as the learned judge himself has found, it is one of the features of the New Church that each member interprets the writings for himself, and is not bound by the interpretation of anyone else.

Cf. Mr. Worcesters testimony to the contrary on pp. 437-9.

In inquiring, What are the Doctrines of the New Church, or the Church of the New Jerusalem? it was sufficient for the immediate purpose to say

that the book on CONJUGIAL LOVE is not a theological book, but rather one dealing with morals, and, therefore, New Church education does not necessarily involve the teaching of that book, because it is theology alone which is the basis of church doctrine.

There can be an education of New Church ministers without opening the book on CONJUBIAL LOVE. Such education does not necessarily involve its consideration. Even if this book be immoral, the whole purpose of the testator can be filled without paying any attention thereto.

Then taking up the question by the Court, that the testator had intended the university to teach the doctrines as laid down in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and that if he had wished to do so, he could and would have distinguished between the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg and his theological writings, the argument continues:

Does not this observation lose sight of the fact that there is no direction that all the writings of Swedenborg should be taught, but simply the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in said writings?

The New Jerusalem is a church dealing with theology, and any writings which do not teach that theology are not necessary to be taught, because not part of Swedenborgs Doctrines.

To illustrate: The founder of a religion may lay down certain principles of such religion. These will constitute his church or his theology. He may write upon various other subjects, of science, or art, or morals. These form no part of his theology.

It may be true, as the learned judge says, that the General Church of the New Jerusalem holds that the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE is a part of Divine Revelation; but there is no testimony that the General Convention holds any such doctrine. A man may state as a fact that a certain thing is preferable to another, both being evils, without advocating either, and without preaching any doctrine, to those who belong to a church.

In oral argument Mr. Johnson said:

What church doctrine is conveyed in the statement of a moral proposition? What duty is inculcated or put upon that university to teach that book, even if it was bad, which it was not?

Now, let us see exactly where we stand upon these few pages which are not doctrinal pages. I may say that I believe in the legalization and inspection and examination of certain things as being less evil, as being less promotive of injury to the commonwealth than the ignoring of that which is bound to exist. And is my statement of that to be held up against me as immoral, much less as laying down a doctrine of a church? I have a right to my opinion upon the various social, economical and political matters which may arise, and because I write upon them, if I also should be the founder of a church a man who gives his money for the purpose of education in the doctrines of my church has nothing at all to do with my other writings. When the ministers go out into the world, they, not the University, are to teach the doctrines of the Church, as embodied in the writings.... There is no direction that any writing shall be taught; there shall be education in the Swedenborgian Church and there shall be education of Swedenborgian ministers, and they, when they go out into the world, are to teach the Doctrines of the Swedenborgian Church as found in his writings and nothing whatever is incumbent upon the University to teach any or all of the writings, excepting the doctrines of the Church.

Mr. Doerings testimony is then quoted, to the effect that Swedenborg stated that CONJUGIAL LOVE does not treat of theology, but chiefly of morals (see p. 177).

VI. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE LEARNED JUDGE, BEFORE DENYING THE RIGHT OF THE TRUSTEES TO TAKE UNDER THE WILL, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW JERUSALEM, AS LAID DOWN IN THE WRITINGS OF SWEDENBORG, WERE, AS A WHOLE, INJURIOUS AS TO MORALS, OR VIOLATIVE OF LAW.

The purpose of the bequest was to found a university to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem.... What were the doctrines of the New Jerusalem required to be taught? The learned judge says: I cannot say, because I read nothing but a few pages of one book.

How can doctrines be condemned which are not understood?

How can they be understood if they are not examined? How can a church be stricken down in this land of liberty of conscience, by a judicial decree, based upon ignorance of the doctrines condemned?

The Supreme Courts award in Manners vs. Library Company is cited at some length in support of this, the ruling in that case being to the effect that where the primary object of a bequest is not objectionable it will be supported.

It is the purpose of the bequest as a whole that must be dealt with. A single part does not justify its condemnation, if, upon the whole, the effect is good. Does the Church of the New Jerusalem promote vice or immorality? 

It had been stated in the final Decree that similar condemnation would follow a bequest to publish incontinent writings from the Bible derogatory to the law.

Let us ask, however, if some testator should not select from the Bible incontinent writings, but should give his fortune in order that the Bible should be circulated as a whole, would it be possible to condemn the bequest as immoral, because the Bible contains incontinent writings of the author?

Far from the bequest being, as stated in the Decree, for the dissemination of the doctrine laid down in CONJUGIAL LOVE, it should rather be said that it was intended to educate university ministers in the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem. Why single out the few pages of CONJUGIAL LOVE as being the only matter intended to be disseminated?

Taking up the Courts statement that the most difficult person to discipline is one who believes that God permits an infringement of Caesars rights, the Brief continues:

We are at a loss to find in any part of the record, any testimony to the effect that the Church of the New Jerusalem, in the name of religion, seeks to abrogate the law. Upon the question of discipline and the infringement of Caesars rights, we are unable to pass. We have some consolation, however, in the fact that neither is material to the discussion, or just determination of the case.

Quoting further from the final Decree to the effect that Swedenborg appropriated his idea of eternal marriage from Publius Syrus, the comment is made:

We are unable to see, by reason of past crass ignorance even of the fact that the gentleman referred to, ever existed, what part Publius Syrus had in the Swedenborgian doctrine or what truth there is in the Krafft-Ebing explanation to be found in his PSYCHOPATHIA SEXUALIS. We fear this ignorance will continue forever, feeling no overwhelming temptation to plunge into the depths which open.

The writers of the Brief were equally ignorant of anything contained in the record, or anything in the writings of Swedenborg, that attacked the main foundation of our national existence. If a word of Swedenborgs one hundred and forty-nine volumes could be found that does this, the Courts suggestions might have some basis, but they left the search to others, contenting ourselves with saying that the record does not contain any justification for what is said.

VII. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A FINDING THAT THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW JERUSALEM, AS TAUGHT IN THE WRITINGS OF SWEDENBORG, WERE INJURIOUS TO MORALS OR GOOD ORDER; ON THE CONTRARY, THEY PROMOTE BOTH. THERE IS NOTHING, EVEN IN THE CONDEMNED PAGES INJURIOUS TO MORALS OR ORDER.

The discussion of this proposition opens with the citation of Mr. Worcesters testimony showing that the General Convention had always included the vast majority of New Churchmen.

Referring to the REPORT of 1879, the Brief goes on:

Whether or not this report has any binding authority, we certainly can appeal to it, prepared as it was by those who are familiar with the doctrines of Swedenborg, as an interpretation of said doctrines, quite as valuable and quite as likely to be correct, as was finding concerning these doctrines made by the learned judge, who admitted that he had only read a few pages.

In the hands of those who thus interpret the doctrines, the University to be founded under their auspices, will not be likely to teach immorality. The writings, as they will expound them, will not incite to vice or disobedience of law.

Copious quotations are then made from the REPORT, and the Brief continues:

No one is taught by any such doctrine as is thus shown to be the Doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem, to do evil. He is told that any form of illicit intercourse is evil. He is not advised to indulge in it. There is simply a statement, which finds an echo in the minds of very many, that as to the man who cannot be restrained from doing evil, it is better that he commit the less rather than the greater.

In further confirmation, the testimony of Messrs. Seward and McGeorge is cited in answer to the question as to whether prior to 1879 there was any teaching in the General Convention, or whether it had ever been the teaching of the New Jerusalem Church, that intercourse between the sexes outside of the marriage relation was not sinful. The extracts from the DOCTRINE OF LIFE, put in evidence, are also referred to, as condemning, in the most unmistakable way, any sexual intercourse outside of the marriage relation.

There will be furnished to the Court in connection with this Brief a statement prepared and submitted by a Committee of the General Council of the General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the United States of America, which is presented as an argument.* In it will be found copious citations from the works of Swedenborg, in which marriage is taught to be the only proper relation, and in which all illicit sexual intercourse is condemned in the most unmistakable language.

* This refers to the pamphlet Marriage and Its Perversions, see p. 356.

VIII. IF ANY INQUIRY WAS MATERIAL, IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE LEARNED JUDGE TO DETERMINE, NOT WHAT WERE THE WRITINGS OF SWEDENBORG BUT WHAT WERE THE DOCTRINES OF THE NEW JERUSALEM, AS LAID DOWN THEREIN. IF THE CONDEMNED PAGES OF CONJUGIAL LOVE REALLY DID CONSTITUTE PART OF SAID DOCTRINES, IT WAS HIS DUTY TO INTERPRET THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCEPTED INTERPRETATION ESTABLISHED BY THE NEW CHURCH ITSELF.

After reciting that the bequest was one for universal New Church education in these United States and for the education of New Church ministers, the Brief goes on:

A few pages of one of the Writings of the founder of the church were produced. These had been interpreted during a period antedating the Will of the testator, and continuously to the present time, by the New Church itself. How was it possible to ignore this interpretation? Could immorality result from New Church education, when those who would be in charge of it had uniformly and consistently interpreted the Writings in a way which made them breathe pure morality and not immorality? Which interpretation was likely to be taught, the University? The one put upon it by the learned judge, who had read only about a score of pages, or that which had been consistently and continuously given by the church itself from time immemorial? The learned judge says:

It is the veriest quibble to pretend that the testator did not intend the University to teach that which those whom it taught were required to teach.

In the first place, the University itself was not required to teach the doctrine as found in the Writings. It was required to give a universal New Church education to the ministers, and thereafter it was they who were to teach the doctrine as found in the Writings. Is it a quibble to say that the testator did not intend the University, even if it should teach the doctrines as found in the Writings, to teach them otherwise than in accordance with the interpretation put upon the same by the Church itself?

The overruling of Mr. Coyles offer, which is quoted in full (see p. 182), to prove certain things by Mr. Seward, is then noted; also the resolution passed by the Pennsylvania Association in April, 1909, to the effect that the Association stands on the Divine commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery (see p. 443), and finally Mr. Worcesters testimony to the effect that it was always the teaching that all practice of impurity, including fornication and concubinage, was a transgression of the commandment, regarded as sinful in the sight of God. (See p. 191.)

IX. THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE NEW JERUSALEM CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REPRESENTS SAID CHURCH. ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE CONDEMNED PAGES OF THE BOOK ON CONJUGIAL LOVE IS, THAT SWEDENBORG CONDEMNS AS EVIL ALL INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE SEXES OTHER THAN IN THE STATE OF MARRIAGE, AND STATES MERELY THAT CERTAIN FORMS OF ILLICIT INTERCOURSE ARE LESS EVIL THAN OTHERS.

This is passed by with a reference to the Appendix, by which this position is thoroughly established.

X. THE LEARNED JUDGE ERRED IN EXCLUDING TESTIMONY OF WHAT THE ACCEPTED INTERPRETATION BY THE NEW JERUSALEM CHURCH OF THE CONDEMNED PAGES ON CONJUGIAL LOVE WAS.

Under this proposition, the Brief contents itself with citing, from the final Decree, to the effect that each contestant was entitled to attack the proofs intended to establish the identity of the other; and from the record, that Mr. Coyle had not been allowed to ask whether there was any difference in the teaching of the doctrines by the General Convention, at the time of Mr. Kramphs death, and by the General Church (pp. 164, 167); whether the doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem does or does not teach as wrong and sinful, all relations of the sexes outside of the marriage state (p. 173); whether the General Convention teaches that such relation is sinful, while the General Church teaches that it is proper (p. 189), and finally, whether in 1891, there was not a split from the General Convention because of a difference in the interpretation of this point? (p 174).

Marriage and Its Perversions.

The Statement prepared and submitted by a Committee of the General Council of General Convention (p. 353), though called an Appendix to the Brief (p. 355), was an entirely distinct document, being in pamphlet rather than Brief form. Moreover, it was not presented to Counsel for the Academy until several days after the Brief, and only two or three days prior to the argument before the Supreme Court. (See p. 364.)

The Document was entitled, Marriage and Its Perversions, a Statement of the Doctrine of Swedenborg and the New Church Prepared and respectfully submitted by a committee of the General Council of the General Convention.... Not made public pending action of the General Council and of the Council of Ministers.

The pamphlet opens with an introduction, entitled: The Reason for the Statement.

The necessity has arisen for the New Church to make clear its stand for the sanctity of marriage and purity of life. The especial danger at this time is due to the teaching put forth in the name of the New Church by the body commonly known as the Academy, with headquarters at Bryn Athyn, Pa., that under certain conditions sexual relations outside of marriage are not evil, nor a violation of commit adultery.... They have also insisted before the public and in a court of law what their teaching is the teaching of Swedenborg and is the doctrine of the New Church. As a result reproach is brought upon the Church.*

* This paragraph of the Reason for the Statement was subsequently adopted, with a few slight verbal changes, as the first paragraph of the Conventions DECLARATION (see p. 446); the Reason given for the latter being a considerable modification of Part V of the present pamphlet (see p. 357).

It should be stated at the outset that the great majority of New Churchmen have always been determinedly opposed to the Academy contentions, and that the General Convention never has had and does not have any organic relation with that body.

The doctrine of the New Church upon the subject as it has been taught and generally accepted is stated in the following pages, in order that the reproach brought upon the Church may be removed, and that the Church itself may be strengthened in a true understanding of the doctrine.

Then follow Parts I to IV, setting forth the Doctrine of the New Church. These will be noted later on when we come to review the Conventions DECLARATION, to which they are appended (see p. 426).

Part V, The Academy Teaching, commences:

We might close here our statement of the doctrine given through Swedenborg; ... but we are compelled to consider a teaching which has been put forth in the name of the New Church, which is shocking to the moral sense of Christian people, and is utterly repugnant to the spirit and letter of the heavenly doctrines. The failure to expose this teaching, to refute it, and repudiate it, has brought the New Church under deserved suspicion and censure.

This teaching had become identified with the General Church, whose headquarters were at Bryn Athyn, and of which the Academy is a part. The teaching was presented from the Academys official statements and from NEW CHURCH LIFE, its official organ.

From these statements it appears that fornication and concubinage under certain conditions are regarded by the Academy as not evil, and the practice of them as not lacking in morality, respectability; or delicacy for Christian men and women and members of the New Church.

Extracts from NEW CHURCH LIFE (1888, pp. 81, 190; 1889); p. 9; and 1890, p. 9) are then quoted and are followed by the comment:

Regret was afterwards expressed that questioners were allowed so wide a scope for questions and that the answers went so far into particular applications (LAWS OF ORDER, p. 102), but this regret indicates no departure from the positions taken by NEW CHURCH LIFE, nor does it atone for the lack of regard for innocent states, which could give these articles, and others like them, place in a family paper.*

* See p. 20, seq.

The PRINCIPLES OF THE ACADEMY are cited as declaring that the laws in CONJUGIAL LOVE, 444 to 476, inclusive, are laws of order given for the freedom and preservation of the conjugial; and further, that to deny the Divinity of any part of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE is to deny the Lord Himself in His Second Coming.

These PRINCIPLES had been recently advertised as giving a true statement of what the Academy stands for.

LAWS OF ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CONJUGIAL is then referred to, as being the statement of the Academys position, and the passage is quoted from the Introduction (pp. 19, 20) where Bishop Pendleton speaks of means of preservation that are neither positive nor negative, but intermediate (see p. 451), to which the pamphlet adds: The doctrine teaches otherwise.

Then follows a quotation from LAWS OF ORDER (pp. 134-5) on the duty of men (see p. 454, below). The pamphlet adds:

In other parts of this book the author not only teaches that it is a duty to avail ourselves of the evils described in SCORTATORY LOVE, but strenuously denies the redemptive work of the Lord as applicable to such temptations (p. 179); and the appeal to the saving power of the Lord, he calls faith-cure, prayer-cure, Christian Science-cure (p. 176). He thus denies in effect that the Lord came into the world to save His people from all their sins,... and leaves us no hope, no relief except in a resort to fornication or concubinage,--under certain conditions and limitations.

After quoting the whole of the DECLARATION BY THE GENERAL CHURCH, following the Summary of the Chapters in CONJUGIAL LOVE (see p. 466), the pamphlet then addresses itself to The Falsity of the Academy Position. It describers the teaching of the Academy as an utter perversion and misapplication of the heavenly doctrine. It was impossible to understand how one in the New Church could believe that the evils of fornication and concubinage are necessities for himself or for anyone who knows the source of Christian strength.

Bishop Pendletons statement as to the love of the sex being at first neither good nor evil, is contrasted with SCORTATORY LOVE, 452, teaching that fornication is an evil. The pamphlet then continues:

If the going forth of the love of the sex in fornication is not evil, why does the doctrine declare that it is most important that the manly power shall be reserved for a wife (SCORTATORY LOVE, 459)? If the going forth of love of the sex in fornication is indifferent, if it is neither good nor evil, why does not the doctrine say so instead of saying that if only marriage love is regarded, wished for, and sought, as the chief good, the fornication can yet be wiped away (449)?* Not only so, but the doctrine classes fornications, pellicacies, concubinages, and adulteries as scortations (530), thus explicitly placing even the most restricted fornication among the evils which THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 313, 316, and THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE, 74, 77, declare are forbidden by the commandment and are to be shunned as sins against God.

* The passage referred to says: Natural love, which is love to the sex, precedes spiritual love which is love to one of the sex; but if fornication goes forth from the natural love of the sex, it also may be wiped away, provided conjugial love be regarded, chosen, and sought as the principal good.

The doctrine of the New Church is clear, that all sexual relations outside of marriage are evil, that it is the duty of everyone who knows the Lord and His commandments to shun all such relations, the thought of them, and the desire for them, as sins against God, and that he has power from the Lord to do so. This truth is of the utmost importance; it is fundamental; the failure to grasp it is
the root of the fallacy of the Academy teaching. To reject this truth is to make good and evil a matter of individual human judgment; it is to reject the Divine standard and the Divine strength.

What then is the meaning of the inability of some men which is referred to in the chapters on fornication and concubinage, and the suggestion that some forms of evil are not so grievous and so fatal to marriage love as others? Contrast this picture of human weakness with the picture given in THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, CONTAINING THE UNIVERSAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW CHURCH, and in THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE FOR THE NEW JERUSALEM, with its clear condemnation of every form of impurity in act and thought and feeling, and its assurance that every man is able to shun these evils as of himself, by the power of the Lord, if he implore it. How is the contrast to be explained? How are the two pictures to be reconciled?

The Academy teaches, in effect, that the pictures are of the same spiritual man and member of the New Church; that the acceptance of the permissions of fornication or concubinage is the practical carrying out of the Christian duty of keeping the commandments, and the relief so gained is the fulfillment of the promise of victory in the Divine strength. Impossible! The contrast between the pictures is the contrast between spiritual strength and natural weakness; between mans helplessness and the Lords might.

The laws in question were laws of order only in the sense that laws of permission are a part of the Lords government of the evil.... They are at the most laws for the limitation of disorder.

Moreover, the phrase, for the freedom and preservation of the conjugial was

equally false and misleading. Indulgence in evil is not freedom, but bondage.... The most that the doctrine teaches is that by fornication and concubinage in their milder forms the possibility of true marriage is not destroyed as it is by grosser forms of impurity. The conjugial may be preserved. But how is it preserved? What is the saving element in the situation? It is the degree of restraint that is exercised,* the utmost that one believes himself able to exercise. These are the very words of the doctrine: Thereby inordinate and promiscuous fornications are curbed and limited, and a state of more restraint is induced which is more related to the life of marriage love (SCORTATORY LOVE, 459). Some restraint is better than none, and this is the saving element in the situation.

* The teaching of the HEAVENLY DOCTRINES is not that it is the degree of restraint, but the thought and will from which the restraint proceeds. See CONJUGIAL LOVE, 452. (See pp. 492, 503.)

The pamphlet then quotes from the DECLARATION BY THE GENERAL CHURCH as to the three degrees of the relation of the sexes recognized by the Doctrines (p. 466), and adds:

Thus fornication and concubinage are exalted to a place by the side of marriage in the recognition of the church! One step more and we should see them given place among the sacred rites and sacraments. It might be observed that milder forms of adultery, and graver kinds of adultery of which a man actually repents, do not stand in the extreme degree of opposition to marriage love (SCORTATORY LOVE, 423). It would seem consistent with the reasoning of the Academy to exalt these also to the level of virtues and Christian duties.

The phrase analogous to marriage seems to be borrowed from the sentence in SCORTATORY LOVE, 459, which speaks of the lasciviousness of salacity, which is foul, as being, in restricted fornication, qualified by something seemingly analogous to marriage,-- aliquod sicut analogon conjugii. If the phrase is taken from this passage it should be correctly quoted with all qualifying words, which show the analogy to be slight and superficial.... It may be noticed also that the phrase analogous to marriage love is applied to the love which inheres in polygamic scortation, which is condemned in the strongest possible terms (SCORTATORY LOVE, 466).

[The presentation of the teaching on the Heavenly Doctrines is here so disingenuous that we are impelled to add the words themselves to which the pamphlet refers:]

In CONJUGIAL LOVE, 459, we read: I. That by it [pellicacy restricted to one] inordinate and promiscuous fornications are curbed and limited, and thus a more restricted state is induced, which is more clearly related (affinoir) to the conjugial state. II. That the ardor of venery, in the beginning hot, and, as it were, burning, is allayed and mitigated, and thus the lasciviousness of salacity, which is filthy, is tempered by something as it were analogous to marriage. Here, it will be noticed, that the words more nearly related to the conjugial state and something as it were analogous to marriage are used to show that the restricted pellicacy treated of, is preferable to wandering lust; and to confirm the proposition that the conjugial may be preserved with those who, for various causes cannot yet enter into marriages, and by reason of salacity cannot moderate lusts (libidines),* provided the love of the sex is limited to one mistress.

* Libidines, i. e., heats of the body as opposed to concupiscentiae, which are lusts of the will.

In the second reference, CONJUGIAL LOVE, 466, we read that Concubinage, which is simultaneous or conjoint with the wife is scortation more opposed to conjugial love than common scortation, which is called simple adultery, may he seen from the following considerations: That there is not within common scortations or simple adultery a love analogous to conjugial love, for it is only a heat of the flesh, which immediately burns away and sometimes leaves behind no vestige of love to her.

Here the analogy is not to marriage, but to conjugial love, and this analogy, moreover, is given as making the evil worse than if there were no such analogy.

There is a manifest distinction between these two passagesa distinction which, although it is disingenuously neglected by the writer of the pamphlet, must nevertheless be clear to every rational reader of the passages themselves. In the one case the teaching is: If the over-salacious will restrict themselves to something as it were analogous to marriage, the conjugial may be preserved with them, and indeed will be, if the restriction be induced from the end that the conjugial and chaste state is preferred (CONJUGIAL LOVE, 452). In the other case, the teaching is, that with an adulterer, this analogy to conjugial love--not an external analogy like the analogy to marriage, but an internal and profane analogymakes his adultery more grievous. In the one case, when the will and intention is for the preservation of conjugial love, the analogy to the conjugial state in externals, serves as a means whereby this will and intention can be preserved; in the other case, where there is adulterous love, the analogy to conjugial love makes the adulterous love more serious because it is a mingling with and profanation of the conjugial. In the one case the analogy expresses a limitation whereby conjugial love may be preserved; in the other it expresses a profanation whereby it is more interiorly destroyed.]

The pamphlet continues:

The falsity of the DECLARATION is the falsity of the whole teaching of the Academy on this subject. It has lost all sense of relation and perspective, and exalts methods of the Lords government of the evil as laws of spiritual life. In the emphasis it gives to the fact that some forms of evil are less grievous than others because less harmful to marriage love, it loses sight of the vastly more important truth that all sexual connections outside of marriage, and all thoughts of such connections, are evil and are condemned by the Divine commandment.

These contentions are the more harmful because put forth under the plea of loyalty to the doctrine of the New Church. We believe in loyalty to the doctrine, to the whole doctrine, but not to an interpretation which makes one part of the doctrine contradict other parts and the spirit of the whole. The Academy fails to place the particulars of doctrine under the general, and confusion is the result. Principles which relate to wholly different conditions, and which are remote from the needs of Christian men, are presented to members of the Church and to young men of the Church as Divine laws of order and Christian duty, applicable in their discretion to their case. The doctrine and the Church are falsified before the work, and holy things are brought into contempt.

It is charged by the Academy that New Churchmen hesitate to accept its interpretation of SCORTATORY LOVE through fear of the disapproval of the world. The Academy itself goes so far in its defiance of the worlds best sense of what is true and good, as to add to its statement of belief in the Divinity of the Writings of the New Church the declaration, From them the Lord speaks to His Church, and the Church acknowledges no other authority and no other law (Cover of NEW CHURCH LIFE, January, 1909). There is a right regard for tire worlds best judgment, as expressed in public opinion and in civil law. The doctrines of the New Church make love of country and regard for civil law a religious duty, essential to the existence of society, and the proper basis and receptacle of spiritual life (TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, 414; DIVINE PROVIDENCE, 322.)

Before one could so interpret the Divine Truth of the Word or of Doctrine as to mate evil appear allowable, he must heed the teaching:

Natural adultery and the falsifying of the truth of doctrine and of the Word to confirm what is false and evil, are in essence one.

The remaining portion of this Fifth Part of the pamphlet, entitled, The Gospel for the New Church, is included in the publication of the DECLARATION OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION, noticed on p. 446.

Academys Objections to the Pamphlet.

Counsel for the Academy filed before the Supreme Court a motion to suppress the above pamphlet on four counts. Two of these were of a purely legal nature, one that the pamphlet was not printed according to the rules of the Court, and the other that it relates to an issue not involved in the question submitted to the Court, namely, whether a devise to endow a University to teach the Doctrines of Swedenborg was void because the purpose was immoral.

The other objections were:

1. That the Statement was irrelevant, being a collection of alleged facts, which no one offered to prove at the Audit. If such offer had been made it would have appeared that the Academy was not responsible for most of the quotations taken from the NEW CHURCH LIFE. The quotations were wholly misleading. The Statement presents, for the first time, questions of fact, upon which the Court is expected to pass after an ex parte hearing. It sought to incorporate into argument; matter published in 1888-189, a period when the publications was not the official organ of the Academy and when its opinions were the individual expression of the editor. Moreover, while the pamphlet was referred to in the Brief as the interpretation ... held by the General Convention, yet itself showed that it had not been submitted to that body; and even if it had, the Convention was no party to these proceedings.

2. It had not been served on the Counsel for the Academy in time to prepare an answereven if such would be considered.

When Counsel for the Academy offered the motion to suppress, Mr. Johnson answered that he had cut out of the pamphlet everything not in the record.*
*When the pamphlet was presented to the Court a number of its paragraphs, including all the citations from NEW CHURCH LIFE, were pasted over with transparent paper.

Brief for the Academy in Reply to Trustees Brief.

This brief formed the basis of Mr. Weills argument at the Audit in Lancaster (p. 217).

After noting that the Court below had found that the Academy exactly meets the requirements imposed by the testator, the Brief points out that the Academy is the only University or Institution claiming the fund, and pursuant to law it had petitioned that its directors be appointed trustees for the holding of the fund for its benefit.

The fund was also sought by certain persons claiming to be some of the successors of the Trustees named in the will, who claimed that the fund should be turned over to them, that the Academy should then present its claim to them, and that they should then determine whether or not it meets the requirements of the will. There was no other university or institution that had claimed, or had expressed an intention of claiming that it is or ever will be a university such as was contemplated by the will, or that it was or ever would be entitled to the bequest, and no study of the testimony of the McGeorge Trustees was necessary to show that if the fund is given to them, they do not intend to turn it over for the benefit of the Academy.

The testator had clearly intended the original trustees or their successors to endow a University, only in the event that a University such as was contemplated had not been established prior to the final settlement of the estate. It was admitted that the Academy had been established prior to the final settlement of the estate. The question therefore was whether it is such a university as was contemplated by the will.

At the outset attention was called to the fact that six of the seven alleged successorTrustees are members of the General Convention; while the other Trustee and the members of the Academy belong to the General Church of the New Jerusalem; that the General Convention and the General Church are distinct bodies, between which there is considerable feeling; and that Mr. Kramph had not been in sympathy with the General Convention.

The argument then proceeds under nine propositions:

I. THE ACADEMY OF THE NEW CHURCH IS A UNIVERSITY SUCH AS IS CONTEMPLATED IN AND BY TESTATORS WILL.

The purposes of the Academy are quoted from the Charter to show that they are identical with the objects contemplated by the testator, indicating in fact, an even greater institution than the testator had in mind, i. e., in the sense of more fully carrying out his intentions for universal New Church education than in his day seemed possible.

A. The institution described by Mr. Kramph was to be:

a. A University of the New Jerusalem.

b. For universal New Church education in these United States, and

c. For the education of New Church ministers, who are to teach the doctrines of the New Church as laid down in the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg.

That the Academy in the above particulars complies with the testators will is shown from its Charter, and also from its JOURNAL OF EDUCATION. Indeed, the fact is not seriously disputed.

B. It is to be founded in the consolidated City of Philadelphia.

Just prior to the signing of the will, and in the same year, the limits of Philadelphia had been extended to include the outlying districts, which were then united into the consolidated City of Philadelphia.

The Philadelphia Society was organized in 1854, with Mr. Benade as pastor, and Mr. Kramph wrote two letters to Mr. Benade heartily indorsing the movement. In 1856 the Society

erected a building in the City of Philadelphia, distinctly and avowedly for New Church education. Part of the building was arranged for worship. This was the first school ever conducted according to the general principles which have been adopted by the Academy.

Owing to the Civil War and other causes, it was discontinued in 1863. In 1874

Messrs. Benade, Pitcairn, Childs, and Ballou, met to consider what could be done to counteract the growing influence of the negative spirit in the New Church.

This meeting marks not only the continuance of the work begun in 1854 by Mr. Benade, but also the first conception of the Academy as it exists today.

The Academy was formed by twelve members in Philadelphia in 1876, and chartered in the following year, and a college and divinity school opened. The schools remained in Philadelphia until 1897, when they were removed to Bryn Athyn, about one-third of a mile outside of the Consolidated City of Philadelphia, as laid out in 1854. The Academys Charter requires that the office and place of business shall be in Philadelphia; and its annual meetings are all held there.

A claim presented by the Academy prior to 1897 could not have been denied, and if entitled then, it is equally entitled today. No one denied that the Academy had been founded in Philadelphia; but it was now claimed that it must be continuously located there. In answer to this a case is cited where a will provided a bequest as a nucleus for the erection of a hospital to be founded and established within a certain time. Before that time expired, a practical scheme for the formation of the hospital had been adopted, but no buildings had been erected. The Court held that the hospital had been founded and established within the required period. In affirming the decision, the Supreme Court said: In the construction of wills, the precise, literal signification of the terms employed ... is never to be too strictly regarded. (125 Pa. 362.)

But even aside from this, the Academys location just outside of the city did not constitute a valid objection. At the time of Mr. Kramphs death there was but one New Church University in the United States, namely, Urbana.

It was the establishment of an Eastern University identified with the City of Philadelphia that he had in mind, and not a University within the prescribed geographical limits of that city. A reading of his will shows that he was an earnest, enthusiastic supporter of New Church doctrines, and that they constituted the great interest of his life.

So far from indicating that the testators purpose was to require that the University be located in the heart of the city,an impracticable and absurd condition,--his language indicates the opposite purpose. His purpose was a broad one, not intended to be circumscribed by technical lines. He had lived in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, but very evidently believed the University he had in mind would serve a greater purpose if it were identified with Philadelphia. He showed an appreciation of changing conditions when, instead of saying that the University should be founded in Philadelphia, he bore in mind that, in the very year he made his will, the city had taken in part of its outlying districts, thus incorporating the consolidated City of Philadelphia. It was in no sense a condition.

He could not be expected to anticipate the many suburbs around Philadelphia that are today identified with, and regarded as part of that city. Just outside of Philadelphia is an expression that includes many places that are not within the confines of the consolidated city, but, in the popular mind, they are treated as part of it.

The point had been nicely emphasized by Mr. McGeorge, when to the question, Where do you live? he had answered, Philadelphia, that is to say, I live just outside the city limits. (See p. 148.)

It was not to be imagined that Mr. Kramph looked to a University remaining in a city like Philadelphia; for an institution with $4,000 annual income would find difficulty in maintaining itself within the limits of the city. Like Swarthmore and Bryn Mawr, the Academy, though just outside the city limits, was none the less distinctly a Philadelphia institution.

An Iowa case is cited where money was left to be given five years after the death of the testatrix to an orphan asylum in the city of Muscatine, or if such an institution was not in existence at the time, then to a home for old ladies. The money was claimed by an orphan asylum one mile outside the city limits. This claim was disputed by a city home for old ladies.

In supporting the claim, the Court thus defined the words, in the city:

It is true that the word in often sexes the place more closely than the word at, for when we speak of being in a building, we mean within it, but this is not always true of geographical locations, for it is to be observed that in and at are used synonymously of cities and towns....

It may be conceded that a condition precedent to the taking of a bequest must be literally performed, but the trouble in this case does not arise over the application of this rule.... If the intent of the testator was to require the beneficiary to be located within the corporate limits of Muscatine, the defendants have no case. But her primary purpose was to endow an orphans asylum, which should be connected with her home city. Her thoughts were, first of all for the orphans of the community, and did she intend to deprive them of the great benefits to be derived therefrom simply because the institution should be located just across a geographical line? ... We think not. Her purpose was to endow an institution which should be so clearly connected with her home city as to be recognized as a part thereof, and this is clearly the position the defendant occupies (117 Iowa 716).

An Ohio case is also cited, where testator devised property for a great university, and provided that it should be erected in a designated place. After the university had been established the locality became unsuitable, and the Court, in granting permission to move, said: The university, not its place, is paramount in his [testators] thought. He does not make the donation dependent on the site, nor that the site shall always remain the same (6. 0. Circuit 196).

So with the Academy. Mr. Kramph did not provide that the University should always remain in Philadelphia, but simply that it should be founded there.

C. It must have sufficient funds provided, either by subscription or endowment of other contributors, or by the accumulation of this bequest, to yield, independently of the cost of the university building, a clear annual income of four thousand dollars.

This was briefly dismissed by a mere statement of undisputed facts.

D. It is to be under the care and superintendence of a body of Trustees rendered corporate by a perpetual charter legally obtained.

A by-law of the Academys Charter is quoted, providing that the Board of Directors shall constitute a Board of Trustees, etc. (see p. 142), and it is noted that, in view of this by-law, the Trustees as a matter of fact, have been appointed by charter.

There could be no doubt that when Mr. Kramph referred to the University being under the care and superintendence of a body of Trustees, he had in mind a body to which the affairs of the University would be entrusted; and was not concerned with the name by which these men might
choose to style themselves.

II. THIS COURT SHOULD APPOINT THE DIRECTORS OF THE ACADEMY OF THE NEW CHURCH TRUSTEES TO INVEST THE FUND AND APPLY THE INCOME TO THE USES OF THE ACADEMY, SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THIS COURT.

A Pennsylvania Act is cited, to the effect that no disposition of property for any religious, charitable, literary or scientific use shall fail for want of a trustee, or by reason of its objects being indefinite, but it shall be the duty of any Orphans Court, or Court having equity jurisdiction in the proper county, to supply a trustee and by its decrees to carry into effect the intent of the donor or testator, so far as the same can be ascertained and carried into effect consistently with law and equity. The Act also gave permission to any institution, association, corporation, etc., to institute proceedings (P. L., 114, Sec. 1). In accordance with this Act, proceedings had been instituted by the Academy for the appointment of its Directors as Trustees for the purpose of carrying into effect the intent of the will.

If the McGeorge Trustees were to be appointed Trustees, it would be repugnant to the letter and spirit of the will. The Trustees so to be appointed are to have care and superintendence of the Academy, and the McGeorge Trustees, with one exception [Mr. Pitcairn] would not only not have care and superintendence of the Academy, but they would not be in sympathy with the Academy, nor the Academy with them.

Their Trusteeship would be farcical.

III. THE LOWER COURT HAD TO DETERMINE, IN THIS PROCEEDING, WHETHER THE ACADEMY OF THE NEW CHURCH IS SUCH AN INSTITUTION AS WAS CONTEMPLATED BY TESTATORS WILL; AND IF IT IS,

THE ADMINISTRATRIX SHOULD HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO TURN OVER THE FUND TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE ACADEMY, AS TRUSTEES, TO INVEST THE FUND AND APPLY THE INTEREST TO THE USES OF THE ACADEMY, UNDER THE DIRECTION AND CONTROL OF THE COURT; FOR

THE WILL DIRECTS THAT, IF A PERPETUAL CHARTER FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH A UNIVERSITY BE OBTAINED BEFORE FINAL SETTLEMENT OF THIS ESTATE, THE EXECUTORS, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATRIX, SHALL TURN OVER THE FUND TO THE TRUSTEES, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTORS, HAVING THE CARE AND SUPERINTENDENCE OF SUCH UNIVERSITY

Some of the McGeorge Trustees claimed that the right to determine whether the Academy met the requirements of the will belonged not to the Lancaster Court but to themselves, and then, unmindful of the dignity that should accompany this unparalleled effort at usurpation of judiciary powers by these self-appointed Seekers of Justice, their attitude indicates that if awarded the fund,

they will, with fortitude, and without prejudice, make an honest effort to listen to the humble claims of the Academy, after which ceremony they will promptly announce the decision they have already reached, and by a majority vote, deny the Academys claims.*

* In oral argument Mr. Weill pointed out the inconsistency of the Trustees in claiming the right to determine whether or not the Academy is entitled, and at the same time urging before the Court that this institution was not entitled.

Attention is called to the fact, that, though at the time of the will and codicil, neither the testator nor the original Trustees, save one, were members of the Convention, the McGeorge Trustees, with one exception, are members.

In no event should they be permitted to pervert the uses to which the testator intended this fund to be applied. Theirs is a destructive policy with no justification or excuse for the attempt at destruction.

Even assuming the claim of the McGeorge Trustees, the Court would still have to pass upon the Academys claim, and if this was held to be well founded there would be nothing for the McGeorge Trustees to do but to receive the fund and concurrently pay it over to the Academys Trustees. Theirs would be a purely naked trust, and one that should be avoided by the Court. In order that a Trustee may acquire any estate or interest in the property conveyed,

some power must be reposed in him, or some duty imposed upon him, that will constitute him more than a mere repository of the title.... Otherwise the statute of uses will execute the trust at once and vest in the beneficiary the legal title as well as the equitable (Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. 27, p. 107).

A trust will not endure when there are no duties to be performed; the Courts will then ... declare the trust at an end and require the Trustee to convey to those entitled (Ibid, Vol. 28, p. 945).

Two cases are cited, showing that objection on the part of a trustee to termination of the trust is immaterial, if the purposes of the trust have been accomplished.

A mere dry trust will not be sustained when the person equitably entitled ... takes absolutely the entire beneficial interest and the trustee has no duty to perform (37 Pa. 31, 37).

The automatic function of merely receiving ... and immediately paying over the trust fund ... will not make a trust active (180 Pa. 95).

Other cases were cited to the same effect, among them being one where a bequest was given to trustees, the interest only to be expended for certain named institutions.

The Court held that this was a dry trust, and ordered distribution to be made by the executors without the intervention of the trustees. The Court held that the only duty devolved upon the trustees was to distribute the money among the institutions named, a duty which could be equally as well done by the executors (154 Pa. 331).

The Brief then continued. Even though the McGeorge Trustees were called upon to exercise their discretion, they would be unable to do so, for they are divided on the question whether the Academy is entitled to the fund. The Court would be obliged to intervene, for the undisputed legal doctrine is that co-trustees cannot act separately, but all must join in exercising the powers of the office (28) and Benade (p. 146).

IV. THE ORIGINAL TRUSTEES WERE APPOINTED TO DO WHAT THE WILL RECOGNIZES MIGHT BE DONE BY OTHERS, IN WHICH CASE THERE WOULD BE NOTHING LEFT FOR THE ORIGINAL OR THE MCGEORGE TRUSTEES TO DO. NO DISCRETION TO DISPENSE FUNDS IN CHARITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ORIGINAL TRUSTEES OR THEIR SUCCESSORS. THE COURT ALONE HAS POWER TO AWARD THE FUND IN CONTROVERSY. THE ACADEMY IS THE ONLY REAL CLAIMANT. IT PRESENTS A PERFECT TITLE TO THE FUND UNDER THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE WILL AND UNDER THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT, AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO A DIRECT AWARD.

Under the terms of the will and the facts before the Court, even the Court has not the option to select a different beneficiary or to permit a possible diversion of the fund by awarding it to the McGeorge Trustees.

The testators main purpose had been to devote the residue of his estate to the endowment of a New Church University to be founded in Philadelphia.

Still he had appreciated that after providing for his family, this residue would not be sufficient to found such a university. Expecting the estate to increase in value (none of it being available for distribution until his living son had attained the age of twenty-one years), he had named executors for its management He had wished no vain glory for himself as sole founder of a university, as was often the case. He had calculated that his modest bequest, when increased by the good management of his Executors, would be sufficient to aid in the endowment of such a university, but would not be enough for its foundation and support, and he had hoped that others of his religious faith would contribute the balance necessary to carry out his plans.

The will shows beyond controversy that the testators plan was an alternative one: the residue of his estate in the hands of the Trustees appointed by him, with accumulations earned by investment from the time of final settlement of the estate until the time such a university had been incorporated, might constitute the foundation endowment for such a university, in which case the contributions of others would have constituted further endowments in aid of his general plan; the alternative was that, before final settlement of his estate, that is, before the family uses of his estate were ended, or before the anticipated increase in the value of his residue was sufficient for his plans, such a university might be established by others. If the latter event, which is just what has occurred, happened first, the testator intended the residue of his estate to be applied as an additional endowment to such a university.

The appointment of trustees by his Will, who were thereby instructed to incorporate such a university, was an essential alternative part of this scheme.

The family uses of the estate might end at any time by the death of the heirs without issue. Therefore, Trustees were named, in addition to the Executors, but the estate itself was given into the exclusive charge of the Executors, with elaborate instructions about its settlement.

When the estate was about to be finally settled, as it is about to be, THE EXECUTORS WERE TO END THEIR FUNCTIONS BY PAYING IT OVER, EITHER TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES CREATED AND CONTINUED BY THE METHOD OF SUCCESSION PROVIDED IN THE WILL; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE EXECUTORS WERE TO PAY IT OVER TO THE TRUSTEES OF AN EXISTING UNIVERSITY.

The will is so clear on this point that it; is difficult to see how a dispute could arise.

This is confirmed by reference to the Fourteenth Section of the will, where, in the event of a final settlement without leaving issue, the Executors were directed to pay the net balance of the estate to the Trustees named in the Fifteenth Section, for the purposes and under the same restrictions therein mentioned. The restrictions plainly referred to the contingency of a university being established before final settlement, otherwise the word would be mere surplusage.

This was further confirmed by the words, Trustees IN CERTAIN CONTINGENCIES NAMED IN THE WILL, which were found in letters by Messrs. Rathvon and Benade. (P. 146.)

V. UNDER SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW AND UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS WILL, THIS COURT ALONE IS CHARGED WITH THE DUTY OF PREVENTING A DIVERSION OF THE TESTATORS ESTATE FROM THE PURPOSE TO WHICH HE INTENDED IT TO BE APPLIED. AN AWARD TO THE MCGEORGE TRUSTEES, SO THAT THEY MAY EXERCISE SOME ALLEGED DISCRETIONARY POWER, WOULD BE A DIVERSION OF THE FUND AND A FRAUD UPON IT.

A distinctive feature of the will was that the beneficiary is defined with perfect clearness, and is not left to be determined by the Trustees.

The testator chose to make the selection for himself. If, therefore, the Court should permit some alleged discretionary power in the Trustees, claiming under the Will, the possible result will be a diversion of the trust, and a fraud upon it.

VI. THERE ARE NO PROPERLY APPOINTED SUCCESSORS TO THE SEVEN TRUSTEES NAMED IN THE WILL.

The manner of appointment of each of the alleged successor-Trustees is set forth in detail, as shown on p. 105, seq., and it is noted that The Trustees had never attended an assembled meeting, and that there had been no organization, nominations, or elections, except a meeting in December, 1907, at which Mr. Rathvon was not present. It was most expressly the testators will and desire that the original Trustees should feel themselves morally and spiritually bound in case of a vacancy, to confer immediately.

We submit that the resistance to the Academys claim is the only form of official activity that has been shown by the original or McGeorge Trustees.

That the Trustees and their successors were not contemplated as a permanent body was shown by the facts, (1) that the successors were not given any right to in their turn appoint successors; (2) that no provision is made for the incorporation of the Trustees of the will, whereas the Trustees of the University are to be incorporated by a perpetual charter; (3) that the devise to the Trustees of the will was in trust for the purpose of endowing a University, i. e., their office was to come to an end with the endowment; (4) that they were to transfer all the rights and trust given to them to the Trustees of the University; (5) that, if prior to the final settlement, other Trustees should have been appointed by charter, my executors shall transfer all the rights and trust given to them ... to the Trustees then and in that case lawfully appointed ... by said charter; (6) that the will when providing for vacancies in the original Trustees says, in case any of their number be removed by natural death, etc.... before the objects of this trust are obtained, etc., showing that the testator had no concern with the seven Trustees or their successors, once the University had become entitled.

Since the audit in this case, the Rev. Frank Sewall, one of the McGeorge Trustees has resigned and refused to have any further connection with this matter, because of tire attitude taken by the other alleged Trustees.

VII. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE ACADEMY SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED WITH THE GENERAL CONVENTION.

The claims of the Academy had been resisted by the McGeorge Trustees on the ground that Mr. Kramph

was in sympathy with, and a member of General Convention; and that the Academys members are not true New Churchmen, in that the Academy is not identified with the General Convention.

The evidence in this regard had been admitted over the Academys objection, but the lower Court had very properly rejected it as irrelevant.

We deal with the subject solely because of the atmosphere in which the McGeorge Trustees seek to envelop this phase of the case.

The position of the Academy was that from 1840 to the time of his death in 1858 Mr. Kramph

was neither in sympathy with, nor a member of the General Convention, and that membership in General Convention never was requisite or mark of a true New Churchman.

Then by copious quotations from the documents introduced in evidence, the Brief establishes that the testator was a member of the Lancaster Society; that this society was not identified with the General Convention from 1840 to 1865; and that by formal resolution, to which Mr. Kramph subscribed, and by which he was bound, no one could be a member of the society, who was also a member of the General Convention. (See p. 89, seq.) It is also shown that from 1840 until 1891 there were many New Churchmen and many societies in the United States not in any way identified with the General Convention; that there was no central governing power over all these distinct organizations; and that at this day there are two general bodies of the Church, the General Convention and the General Church of the New Jerusalem.

The relation of Mr. Kramph and his New Church friends to the General Convention and Central Convention is then sketched from the evidence, substantially as given on pp. 87, 108, seq.; also the Central Conventions attitude toward New Church education (p. 84).

It is pointed out that at the instance of a committee, consisting of Kramph, Ehrenfried and Benade, the Lancaster Society unanimously adopted a Resolution characterizing the principles of the Central Convention as

NOT ONLY JUST AND TRUE, BUT ALSO A DECIDED ADVANCE UPON ANY PRINCIPLES OF ORDER FOR GENERAL CHURCH GOVERNMENT PROMULGATED ELSEWHERE. (See p. 92.)

Mr. Benades connection with Mr. Kramph and Lancaster Society is also set forth. (See p. 91.)

In 1854 Mr. Benade resigned from the First Philadelphia Society, and together with Messrs. Iungerich, Tafel and deCharms, all of whom are named in the testators will, founded a new Society, known as the Philadelphia Society. This was on October 27, 1854, and the date of Mr. Kramphs will is November 30th, of the same year. The Philadelphia Society was fully organized in 1856, and remained independent until 1858, one year after Mr. Kramphs codicil, dated 1857.

Mr. Benades attitude towards the General Convention is then shown by letters written by him on August 16, 1851 (p. 95), April 29, 1853 (App, p. 201), and February 7, 1854 (p. 95), the latter outlining the writers ideas on New Church education.

In 1856 the Philadelphia Society built the School on Cherry Street, and Mr. Benade laid the cornerstone. This school was the forerunner of the Academy; three of the original Trustees, Messrs. Benade, Burnham and Tafel, were founders and charter members of the Academy, and the conception and elaboration of the scheme of higher education on New Church principles was Mr. Benades.

Much had been said by the McGeorge Trustees about the desires of Mrs. Kramph. Mrs. Kramph, however, had no concern with the appointment of Trustees under her husbands will, and moreover it; was possible to show Mr. Kramphs own attitude towards the Convention. For the purpose of showing this, his letter in answer to the circular by Messrs. Burnham and Benade, calling for the formation of a new general body of the Church is quoted in full (see p. 88), where he expresses himself as

most happy that efforts are being made for the formation of such a body upon principles which I consider strictly in accordance with the writings....We need schools, also institutions for scientific and theological instruction, to prepare suitable men for the church, as well as for the other uses of life.

Mr. Kramphs letter of October 13, 1856, one month after the laying of the cornerstone of the school at Cherry Street, is also quoted in full (see p. 89) where he expresses himself as being most happy to learn that you laid the cornerstone, and speaks of Mr. Benades society as

being the only one in this country, perhaps in the world, which has a constitution founded on true Order, and is certainly nearer right than any other.

YOUR SOCIETY BEING THE ONLY ONE IN THIS COUNTRY, PERHAPS IN THE WORLD, WHICH HAS A CONSTITUTION FOUNDED ON TRUE ORDER, AND IS CERTAINLY NEARER RIGHT THAN ANY OTHER is hardly a glowing tribute to General Convention from Frederick J. Kramph in comparing that Big Association with this Little Society.* To predicate argument on these letters would smack of pure affectation.

* This refers to Mr. MeGeorges characterization of the Philadelphia Society (see p. 201).

The position of the McGeorge Trustees seemed to be that all true New Churchmen belonged to the General Convention, and ever have belonged there. They imply that the General Convention is the governing head. The fact is that is what it has long wanted to be, but has never succeeded in becoming.

In connection with the inference drawn by the McGeorge Trustees from the fact that Mr. Kramph was present at certain meetings of the General Convention, it is noted that he attended such meetings as a visitor only (p. 88).

Had he been in sympathy with the General Convention, he might have been expected to name prominent members of that body in his will, but here there was a studied avoidance of the General Convention.

In 1854, when Mr. Kramph made his WILL, NOT ONE OF THE THIRTEEN MEN SELECTED AS TRUSTEES, JOINT SPECIAL GUARDIANS AND EXECUTORS WAS A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION

In oral argument Mr. Weill gave as the probable cause of this, that

Mr. Kramph did not want, as Trustees, men identified with the General Convention.

This was confirmed by his intimate relations with Mr. Benade, whose letters (see App., pp. 200, 202) showed that

he did not have the same wholesome respect for the General Convention as it is now argued he had in 1854.

He calls it the do nothing body. ... And Mr. Kramph seemed to have the same notion.

If, when Mr. Kramph drew up his Will, he had wanted to select New Churchmen prominently identified with the General Convention, he could have done so easily, and it would have been a simple matter to come in and say that he had selected the head of the General Convention and some of its officers, and some of its leading men.

WE SUBMIT FREDERICK J. KRAMPH WAS NOT SYMPATHY WITH GENERAL CONVENTION. This is further shown by the provision in the will that, in case of failure to carry out the bequest in this country, it shall be devoted to the promulgation of the New Church doctrines in Great Britain, Ireland, Germany and Switzerland, and for this purpose the fund is given to the Trustees appointed by the English Conference, AND THE GENERAL CONVENTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS UTTERLY IGNORED.

Without undertaking to give the reason for this provision, we do respectfully suggest that, when General Convention now insists that it was the only true New Church body in existence in the United States at that, time, the claim does not fall far short of bald effrontery.

In oral argument Mr. Weill said:

I do not know why Mr. Kramph would not trust the General Convention with the fund, why he was obliged to go abroad; but I suspect he did not care to have his money go where his principles were ignored.

The Courts attention is then called to the fact that the bequest was not given to an institution to be identified with the General Convention; and to the further fact that at no time has the latter body been the governing head of the New Church. The trouble with the position taken by the McGeorge Trustees is that their view of the New Church does not extend beyond the confines of the General Convention.

Several cases are then cited to show that where a testator does not specify connection with an organized body, the beneficiary can take without such connection.

In one of these cases, the Court, in sustaining a grant to a body that had withdrawn from the Allegheny Synod, said: If any class of our citizens are of the opinion that spiritual blessings can only flow in a particular channel; ... and if such persons found churches, they must declare their opinions explicitly, to have them respected (2 Denis 549); and in another the Court held that a congregation might be a Roman Catholic Congregation without being connected with the Roman Catholic Church (20 Pa. 25).

Cases were then given showing that in case of Church separations, if the separation is alleged to be without just cause, the burden of proof is upon those alleging. Therefore, even assuming that the Academy was entitled to the bequest only as a constituent part of the General Convention, and admitting that it had severed its connection with that body, the burden was upon the McGeorge Trustees to show that it had renounced its connection with the General Convention without sufficient cause.

We submit that the relations were severed for cause.*

* It may be here noted, that the Academy is an independent body, and has never had any connection whatever with the General Convention.

In addressing the Court at the Audit, Mr. Weill added an argument on the question of collateral attack, upon which he dwelt at some length.

An offer had been made (he said)--an offer which was not supported by the testimony--to show that the objects of the Academy were not right. This was an undertaking on the part of the General Convention to attack the Charter of the Academy, and this constituted a collateral attack.

See Mr. Coyles offer, p. 182.

If we were in the position of having our Charter attacked we should then know that the teachings of the Academy were being directly attacked, but in a proceeding of this sort, to come in without saying to the Academy not a day in advance: These Trustees who have been acting together for these forty-nine years with a single meeting in December, 1907, when all were not present, and it certainly was not a regular meeting,--now for these Trustees to say that for some reason, We do not think that the Academy is entitled,--to come into this Court is to attack our Charter collaterally.

Assuming that the Trustees succeeded in their effort, the Lancaster Orphans Court would be then in the position of declaring that to be unlawful which the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, by granting the Academys Charter, had declared to be lawful. The Court that granted the Charter was the body having jurisdiction of the question as to whether the Academys objects were lawful. It is a settled legal doctrine that the violation of a Charter cannot be made the subject of judicial investigation in a collateral suit.

See Mr. Coyles offer, p. 182.

The question before the present Court was whether the Academy is teaching the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg; whether it is teaching the doctrines of the New Church as found in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and educating ministers for that purpose, and whether it had complied with the technical terms of the will.

The claim could not be made that the Academy is an immoral institution, as that question had already been acted upon in the granting of the Charter, but, concluded, Mr. Weill,

If there is any thought to urge the proposition, I am sure we will facilitate any such proceeding, and mould court it.

Some miscellaneous points raised in the Brief for the McGeorge Trustees were then noticed. The continual suggestion that the General Convention is the governing body of the New Church is described as wholly misleading in its effect; and so likewise the statement that until 1891 the Church of the New Jerusalem, called the General Convention, was the body with which the Swedenborgian societies or churches were, to a large extent, affiliated.

The fact is, noted the Brief, that the Church of the New Jerusalem was established in the Eighteenth Century. General Convention was organized in 1817. The phrase, to a large extent, is contrasted with the later statement that the General Convention was the governing body of all Swedenborgian Societies. Referring to the statement that its (i. e., the General Church) teachings are those not of the original, hut a seceding branch of the Church of the New Jerusalem, the Brief notes:

Secession by a New Church institution from an organization that has no governing power is quite different from secession from the Church itself.

The statement printed in large type, Church of the New Jerusalem--the General Convention--to which the Trustees under the Kramph will belong, is described as misleading; moreover, the Court below had found as a fact, sustained by the uncontradicted testimony, that the testator was not in sympathy with General Convention.

The incorrectness of the statement that the Academy was organized by the General Church is also pointed out.

VIII. THE ACADEMY TEACHES THE DOCTRINES OF CONJUGIAL LOVE AS CONTAINED IN THE BOOK; THE TEACHINGS AND BOOK ARE PURE.

The quotation of the testimony of Mr. Doering in the printed Brief of the McGeorge Trustees is noted, and the Brief then continues:

Had the McGeorge Trustees desired to fairly present the matter to the Court, they might have added that the testimony shows that Mr. Doering also testified that he is, and since 1903 has been, Treasurer of the Academy; that his duties are in the office, keeping accounts; that he has nothing to do with the instruction on the subject; that he teaches mathematics in the Academy; and that, at a subsequent hearing, Mr. Doering corrected that part of his testimony relating to the teachings to boys and girls by saying that young women do not receive any instruction on this subject at all.

Noting parenthetically that Bishop Pendleton had testified that such teachings are absolutely restricted to theological students and to the graduating class of the College-young men, the Brief then continued:

Here, then, is the Academys Treasurer, a teacher of mathematics, called and examined on purely formal matters, being subjected to a bitter cross-examination on questions of doctrine, upon a proper statement of which the legitimacy of his Church was made to depend.... The entire case against the Academy is built upon the testimony of this witness. Little wonder he was rattled! But, even so, he handed the Court the DECLARATION OF THE GENERAL CHURCH and, with the book CONJUGIAL LOVE in his hand, referred the questions back to the doctrines themselves, as found in CONJUGIAL LOVE. An examination of his testimony shows nothing else. When pressed for specific replies, he alluded to the conditions contained in that book. His testimony began and ended with the doctrines in CONJUGIAL LOVE,-unchanged.

Various answers by Mr. Doering are quoted, e. g., We merely follow what is here; The reasons are given here; We simply teach what is here; We recognize no conditions except those stated in the book [i. e., CONJUGIAL LOVE] ... because we hold that book to be Divine authority, etc., all showing that the Academy teaches only what is taught in the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE (See p. 170, seq.).

The substance of Mr. Doerings testimony is therefore, first, the General Churchs DECLARATION, which mainly consists of extracts from CONJUGIAL LOVE; and secondly, the book itself.

The matter had been brought up here only because the McGeorge Trustees charged that the deductions of the learned judge, derogatory to the New Jerusalem Church, are largely drawn from the principles of the Academy.

IX. THERE IS NO ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR BY APPELLANTS (No. 2) COVERING ANY OF THE FOREGOING MATTERS.

Referring to the statement in the Brief for the Trustees, we make the general observation that the fundamental difference between the General Church and the General Convention is that the latter believes the doctrine of Swedenborg to be that all sexual relations outside of marriage are evil and forbidden by the Commandment, ... whilst the former claims ... that they are not evil or to be shunned as sins, under certain circumstances, the Brief concludes:

This is, indeed, a general observation! We are constrained to believe counsel have been grossly misled by their clients as to the beliefs entertained by the General Church and the Academy. We do not undertake to detail General Conventions belief; it is difficult of ascertainment. We state, however, that neither the General Church nor the Academy is guilty of any such belief as the McGeorge Trustees seek to fasten upon us. There is not a word of testimony in this case to sustain the remark just quoted; we go further,--there is no fact outside of the record that would justify any such assertion.

Brief for the Heirs.

The Brief notes that the New Church had never had a central dominating organization with full power and authority in matters of doctrine and discipline. It was therefore a fair inference that Mr. Kramph, knowing this condition, and knowing the conflicts in the Church, had refused to make a bequest to any New Church Convention or Council, as such, but expressly provided that the cornerstone of the teachings of such university should be the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, as laid down in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

After noting the neglect of the Trustees to comply with the will in the way of conferring together for the appointment of successors, the Brief then turns to the Academy, arguing that the purposes of that body did not come within the will which says nothing in reference to establishing the New Church signified in the Apocalypse by the New Jerusalem, nor was there any provision in the will for the publication of books or the establishment of a library. The Academy also failed in the way of location, and, moreover, there no was no testimony to show that it taught the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

Despite the fact that the widest latitude had been offered to the claimants to introduce testimony as to the Doctrines of Swedenborg, only three of his works had been introduced, namely, CONJUGIAL LOVE, THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE, and THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

Lengthy quotations are then made from Mr. Doerings testimony that the doctrines themselves are the only authoritative interpretation of the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, as laid down by Emanuel Swedenborg, and that to say what those doctrines are, he would like to produce all of his works. But, added the Brief, no offer had been made to produce all the works. Mr. Worcesters testimony that there is a doctrine of the Church of the New Jerusalem on conjugial love was also quoted, the statements of these two witnesses being presented as embracing all that was brought before the Court, to define the Doctrines as laid down in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg

They had presented their entire case upon the single point that the one doctrine as laid down in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, which was before the Court for determination, was the interpretation of the Second Part of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE.

The oral argument laid emphasis on this point, claiming that appellants now required the Court to thoroughly read one hundred and forty-nine volumes, when yet in the Audit, witnesses who had spent their lives studying and teaching the writings of Swedenborg, had made no effort to show what were the doctrines outside of this portion of CONJUGIAL LOVE.

Mr. Hensels examination of Mr. Worcester is quoted, to show that the work on CONJUGIAL, LOVE has been attacked almost from the time of its first publication, as an immoral book; and this is confirmed by quotations from LAWS OF ORDER.

Note is made of Mr. Coyles offer: First, to show that such a thing was never taught by the Swedenborgian Church; and second, that if it was taught, it is against morality; and the DECLARATION of the Bishop is referred to as showing that the Academy presented this as the foundation on which they would stand or fall so far as this controversy was concerned.

Yet now it was contended that the lower Court should have taken judicial notice of all of Swedenborgs Writings. Cases are then cited, showing that the Court may refuse to take judicial notice of any facts not proven, unless books or documents are produced which satisfy him. The determination of the question at issue was to be found solely in the book, CONJUGIAL LOVE, and in the excerpts from the two other works.

The testimony shows that the doctrines alleged to be based on the book CONJUGIAL LOVE were first questioned at the audit by counsel for the Trustees. From that point in the audit with the testimony was finally closed, the question of the interpretations of the work CONJUGIAL LOVE and the alleged immorality of its teachings was made the sole issue by the appellants.

The importance in this case of the book CONJUGIAL LOVE cannot be overestimated. The doctrines therein laid down are an essential and vital feature of the New Church philosophy. The arguments of counsel for the appellants that this book is a non-essential and an immaterial part of Swedenborgs teachings are gratuitous.

They are material, essential, vital and fundamental doctrines of the New Church, prescribing therein rules of conduct for the members thereof, as the record in this case shows....

If this were not so, why has so much attention been paid to this book?

Why were so many pamphlets, resolutions, or reports written about it? Why were the interpretations of the teachings found therein capable of sundering the inherently weak organization of the New Church?

The oral argument added:

Had it not been for the interpretation of the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE, I question not but there would have been only one claimant for this fund, and this case would never have come before your Honors here.... The testimony showed that this book was at first denied by the Trustees, or rather the Trustees first contended they had repealed, or rather they had [not] taught that certain things prescribed by this book were permissible or allowed....

The very book itself emphasizes its importance in regulating the course of life of the New Churchman, and is a feature of New Church theology. And in THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE and THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Swedenborg himself refers to the book of CONJUGIAL LOVE as further amplifying and explaining the principles contained in these two books.

The Academy and the theological school of the Church with which the Trustees are affiliated, provide a distinct course of education for their students, based on CONJUGIAL LOVE. Various editions of this book have from time to time been published by the Church, and a new edition is now being prepared for publication by a committee of which one of the Trustees is a member.

The importance of the book was further emphasized by quotations from Odhners RULES OF ORDER (sic), pp. 135 and 179, the latter stating that faith in the saving power of the Lord ... requires the acceptance of the Divine Truth revealed in the work on conjugial love in toto.

The Brief then shows that the natural and only interpretation of the will proves that it was the plain intention to the testator that CONJUGIAL LOVE should be taught, for universal education would naturally include CONJUGIAL LOVE, though it mattered not whether it was called a theological or a moral book.

In the oral argument Mr. Baker stated that the Will

prescribed that the contemplated university should be based upon the writings of Swedenborg.

It was admitted by all the parties that CONJUOIAL LOVE was such a writing. The doctrine found in that work, therefore, must be proclaimed by any institution coming within the terms of the Will.

Do you contend, here, asked the Chief Justice, that whatever institution might take this fund must teach all of the Doctrines of Swedenborg?

Yes, sir, answered Mr. Baker; whereupon the Chief Justice said:

He was a man of very high scientific acquirements, besides theological, and covered pretty much the whole field of knowledge of that day. Would it not be rather an ambitious institution to undertake to teach them all now? Is it not sufficient if they teach such portions which they think applicable, and not teach anything to the contrary?

Mr. Baker, however, insisted that the institution was to teach all the Writings of Swedenborg.

The main question was whether the doctrines in this book were in accordance with the spirit and letter of the law. A doctrine may be eminently moral, beautiful, or in accordance with the best scientific knowledge and yet in conflict with the law. Cases were cited to show that a testamentary disposition designed to carry into effect some principle which the law regards as immoral, illegal, etc., will be held void. Also that a bequest for education by the dissemination of the works of a given author is a charitable use, provided such works contain nothing hostile to morality, religion or law (45 N. Y., Eq., 757).

The Brief then notices Swedenborgs exact use of words, and asks how any interpretation could be added to his term, unlawful or permissible, except the ordinary meaning of these words

notwithstanding the fact that the learned counsel for appellants laid great stress on the fact that Swedenborg intended something different by these words than that which they clearly mean. If Swedenborg had meant to qualify these words or had indicated that he intended them to be used in an unusual sense, it is certain that he would have explained at length. If he had meant to confine his doctrines to any particular country, his mathematical and logical accuracy would have led him to explain more fully.

This one teaching of Swedenborg excoriated all his other teachings, no matter how sublime and moral; and it rendered any bequest or trust to be carried out under it illegal and void.

Referring to the omission to introduce in evidence Swedenborgs works, cases are cited showing that where evidence in the control of a party to whose interest it would be to produce it, is not produced, the inference may be drawn that such evidence would be harmful to him.

The Brief then notes the encomiums on Swedenborg, quoted by appellants, but only to dismiss them as of little or no value; for, notwithstanding these quotations, Swedenborgians have always been on the defensive. Eminent religionists have attacked the doctrine in question, and New Churchmen themselves have repudiated it.

It should be added that one of the appellants denies the doctrines in question, but admits that if they are taught as the doctrines of the founder of their sect, that the same are immoral. Furthermore, the interpretation of the only book written by Swedenborg before this Court, has disrupted his followers in this country, and is responsible for the appearance in this case of the two sets of claimants, the appellants here.

The Court was not concerned with the intentions for which these doctrines are promulgated, but with their probable consequences.

If the result of such teachings to the average citizen would tend to have pernicious consequences, or would tend to lead him into practices and conduct that are contrary to the established law, the teaching of such doctrine must be condemned.

The Brief then answers the contention of the Academy as to the distinction to be drawn between the teachings, and the overt acts resulting from the same, and, after noting that no cases had been cited sustaining the position that an organization teaching principles which derogate the statutes is not to be treated as derogating the law and in conflict with public policy, it continues:

It is submitted that the teaching of a pernicious doctrine may be just as detrimental to the social order or the economics of society as any criminal act tending toward a breach of the peace or an infraction of the criminal law....

That the doctrines laid down in the book CONJUGIAL LOVE can have but one interpretation cannot be fairly denied. That the teachings of the Academy are based upon this book, and that those teachings do encourage and excuse violations of the laws of Pennsylvania, cannot be gainsaid.

The question whether these teachings were for the betterment of mankind was not material, but only the question whether they at this time derogate the statute laws and public policy.

The Brief concludes by pointing out that since both appellants agree that every believer ill the Writings must make his own interpretation of them, they thereby placed upon the learned judge the same duty, and therefore could not complain of what they willingly and with apparent; confidence placed upon the Court below.

11.

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION.

On June 22, the Supreme Court handed down the terse Decision:

The Judges who heard this case are unanimously of the opinion that the decree must be reversed; it cannot be sustained on any ground whatever. But we are not entirely agreed as to which of the parties claiming as legates come most nearly within the expressed intent of the testator. This question is, therefore, ordered to be re-argued on behalf of these claimants, at Pittsburgh, in the first week of October.

12.

RE-ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

The Re-argument on the question between the Trustees and the Academy, as to which was the beneficiary under the will, was heard in Pittsburg, before the full bench of seven judges, on October 25, 1909. Mr. Hensel argued for the Academy, and Mr. Johnson for the Trustees--the decision of the Court already rendered, had, of course, eliminated the heirs.

Mr. Hensel confined himself to a plain statement of the claim made by the Academy under the will. Mr. Johnson followed the lines of his printed brief, adding, however, some statements which were in the nature of enlargements. These will be noted in their proper places in the summaries that now follow.

Brief for the Academy.

At the former hearing before the Supreme Court the Academy submitted two briefs, one (see p. 309) excepting to the decision of the lower Court as to the legality of the devise in question, and the other (p. 364) supporting the claims of the Academy under the will. The latter of these briefs was adopted in toto in the re-argument at Pittsburg, and to it was added a brief summary of the argument.

After noting the findings of the lower Court in favor of the Academy, the summary proceeds.

I. The only question involved, according to our present opponents statement, has already been decided by this court.

The Statement of the Question Involved, Prefixed to the Trustees Brief at the first argument before the Supreme Court, is then quoted as follows: Was a bequest to Trustees under a will, for the purpose of endowing a university ... for universal New Church education in these United States, [etc.] void because the purpose was immoral?

The Summary notes that this, the only question submitted by the Trustees has already been passed on by the Supreme Court, and it cites cases to show that no other questions can come before the Court except such as are included in the Statement of Question Involved. Under this rule the so-called McGeorge Trustees are eliminated.*

* The Brief for the Academy had submitted to the decision of the Supreme Court three questions, the first two being essentially the same as the statement by the Trustees, and the third asking, If the ... devise is not void, to which of two ... claimants shall it be awarded?

Under its second and third headings, the Summary presents the issue between the Trustees and the Academy, the former claiming that the contemplated university had to be incorporated and subsequently supervised with the more or less formal approval of the Trustees or the General Convention; the latter that the Trustees have no duties or discretion in the matter, and that the Academy conforms to every requirement of the will.

Brief for the Trustees and the Academys Reply.

To avoid repetition, these documents will be considered together.

The Argument for the Trustees was discussed under three headings:

I. THE MCGEORGE TRUSTEES ARE THE LEGAL SUCCESSORS OF THE TRUSTEES NAMED IN THE WILL AND ARE SO FOUND TO BE AS A FINDING OF FACT BY THE COURT BELOW.

This contention is supported by a single quotation from the first decree delivered by the Lancaster Court, namely, that The Trustees who succeeded those named in the will, hereafter called the Trustees, claim the residue of the estate.

After characterizing these words as an unequivocal finding of fact that the present Trustees are the legal successors of the original Trustees, the Brief cites a large number of cases to show that a finding of fact by a lower Court will not be disturbed on appeal, except on a clear showing of fraud or evident lack of consideration.

The Academy Reply Brief admits the force of these cases, but it asks, What then becomes of the Trustees contention, that The Academy does not fulfill the requirements of the testators will? For the Court below had found as facts that if, before the final settlement of the estate the proper institution had been incorporated,... the Trustees are dropped, their commission never having ripened;

that the Academy ... exactly meets the requirements of the will; and that it was the testators unmistakable intention that to such an one if in existence prior to the final settlement the devise shall immediately go.

II. THE ACADEMY OF THE NEW CHURCH IS CONTROLLED BY AND IS THE INSTITUTION OF THE GENERAL CHURCH OF THE NEW JERUSALEM, A SCHISMATIC BODY OF NEW CHURCHMEN, NOT CONNECTED WITH THE GENERAL CONVENTION, NOR IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF KRAMPHS DEATH.

The record is drawn on to show that Mr. Kramph was affiliated in his lifetime with the General Convention. He had been a member of the Lancaster Society, and the minutes of that society showed that it applied for admission to the Convention in 1836; that it sent delegates to that of the original Trustees), in 1837, and H. Keffer in 1838; and that; it belonged to the General Convention in 1848. From this it will be seen that the Lancaster Society was originally connected with the General Convention.

Mr. Kramphs letter to Mr. Benade (October, 1856) is cited, expressing the opinion that if you and our two societies desire a larger range of usefulness we must look to the General Convention (see p. 89). It is then shown that the Lancaster Society joined the Pennsylvania Association, which, later, became the General Church of Pennsylvania in 1865, and resigned from that body in 1890, joining another body of the Convention in 1891.

The Reply Brief notes that nothing could be further from the truth or at more variance with the record than the suggestion that Mr. Kramph was a member of the General Convention, and therefore intended the devise for it or for some body in sympathy wit it. The Record is then drawn on to show that Mr. Kramph was not a member of the General Convention from 1840 to the day of his death, and that, with the Lancaster Society, he seceded from the General Convention and joined the Central Convention, a body which was in active opposition to the policy of the General Convention.

His opinion that We must look to the General Convention, etc., only

proves what is the fact, that Mr. Kramph was not a member of the Convention, but that he has hopes that the Convention will so mend its ways, that he might be able to join it. That he did not join Convention during his life would seem to be the best manner of proof of the fact that the Convention failed to adopt what Mr. Kramph regarded as a proper platform.

The opinion of the lower Court that Mr. Kramph was not in sympathy with Convention is also quoted (see p. 237), and the Reply adds that Mr. Rathvons statement that the Lancaster Society belonged to the General Convention in 1848, was contradicted by all the evidence, including the minutes of the Society, and must be ascribed to a mistaken recollection on Mr. Rathvons part.

After stating that the Lancaster Society resigned from the General Church in 1890, the Trustees Brief then takes up the secession of the latter body from the General Convention. In reference to this schism, Mr. McGeorge is quoted as testifying:

Q. State whether or not that withdrawal is said to be on account of a difference of understanding of certain fundamental doctrines. A. That is what they said in their letter of withdrawal, page 137 of the Journal of 1891 (see p. 201).

Mr. Doerings testimony on this subject is also quoted. Asked whether the secession was because you wanted to teach this doctrine of permissibility of carnal intercourse and it was not permitted by the General Convention? he answered:

A. No, sir; had that been the case they would have been expelled, but they seceded for another reason. Q. What was that? A. Because the Convention had violated its Constitution....Q. Then your body seceded and formed the General Church? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And your General Church teaches those doctrines that I have referred to with regard to the sexes? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the Academy teaches that? That you teach as the doctrine of your church on it to your young men and young women in your Academy? A. Yes, sir, as far as I know (p. 174.)

On this the Brief comments:

Although the Rev. Doering testified that the advocacy of the so-called doctrine of permissibility was not the cause of the schism between the General Convention and the General Church, it is significant that no such doctrine was promulgated at Kramphs death and that it is the only serious doctrinal difference between the two bodies.

The Academys Reply notes the use, by the Trustees, of italics for the purpose of insinuating that the General Church separated from the Convention because it sought to advocate an immoral doctrine, when yet a glance at the quoted testimony, not italicized, repudiates the insinuation. Nevertheless they again throw out the suggestion, relying for its support upon their own unfounded and inaccurate assertion that this alleged doctrine is the only serious doctrinal difference between the two bodies.

The Brief for the Trustees quotes the testimony of Messrs. Worcester, McGeorge and Seward, that prior to 1879 there was no teaching: of the sinlessness of intercourse between men and women outside of the marriage state (see pp. 191, 192, 199); and it places the date of the commencement of such teaching by a quotation from LAWS OF ORDER (pp. 97-98) to the effect that the New Churchmen who organized the Academy in 1876 were among the few who have not sought to explain away or repudiate the intermediate laws, but have upheld CONJUGIAL LOVE as a Divine work and as meant in all its teachings most especially for those who read and receive it. From the same work is also quoted the authors answer to Mr. Seward as to the duty of New Churchmen (see p. 454).

The Brief then notes it is a singular thing that there is no mention of the Academys doctrine in the letters written about the time of Kramphs death, and it adds:

If the doctrine of permissibility had been taught in Kramphs time, surely it would have created some comment, if we may judge from the furor created today. Every one of the original trustees was a member of the General Convention.

This last statement is characterized in the Academys Reply as another instance of disingenuousness. The statement could be made accurate only by adding the words: But not one of them was a member of the General Convention from the time of the making of the will to the time of Mr. Kramphs death.

Characterizing the Academy as the representative of a schismatic organization, teaching a doctrine unknown at the time of Kramphs death and utterly repudiated by the body of the church with which he was affiliated, the Trustees then cite a number of cases to show the well settled legal doctrine that the right to property or bequests given to a church or congregation vests solely in those who adhere to the doctrine professed by such congregations, and is forfeited by schismatic bodies.

The Brief then continues:

Assuming that the estate had been distributed to the Academy, before the promulgation of the permissibility doctrine, and a secession from the Convention, can there be any doubt under the authorities cited, but that the courts of equity would have come to the aid of the General Convention churchmen in preventing the perversion of the bounty of the testator to the dissemination of doctrines repugnant to the church to which he belonged? Even though the Academy in all other respects fulfilled all the requirements of the testators will,--its schismatic organization and the teaching of doctrines, not only unknown to Kramph, but absolutely repudiated by the Convention with which he and his wife were affiliated,--will prevent the awarding of the fund to the Academy.

We have not touched upon the moral side of the teaching by the Academy,--right or wrong, it is only necessary to say that it was not the doctrine of the church that Kramph knew in his lifetime. When the testator provided ... for the education of New Church ministers, who are to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg, he intended that the ministers should be educated in the doctrines of the church which were then in force, and not in such doctrines as those now advocated by the Academy,--which in all probability would not only have been repudiated by the testator, but called forth prohibitive restrictions in his will.

In oral argument, Mr. Johnson dwelt at some length on the moral side o the teaching by the Academy. He said: In 1891 there came a split upon this provision. Swedenborg laid down certain doctrines, or made certain propositions with regard to concubinage. The great body of this Swedenborgian Church and this General Convention held that it was not a direction to do anything, but; rather that lie laid down the doctrine if [one of] two evils had to be done there were certain limited things in which it was better to do the little than the big. That is the doctrine as the Swedenborgian Church generally stated it. In 1891 there came certain members of that Church who held, not merely that it was a question of which was the greater evil, but under certain circumstances, the thing ought to be done. (Here the speaker quoted from LAWS OF ORDER, as to the duty of New Churchmen, see p. 454.) These people held that it is an inculcated doctrine--that they should make use of concubinage, and they split off from the General Convention and formed a body which they called the General Church, ... the body which has created the Academy. It would be monstrous to take this fund away from ... the Trustees ... and turn it over to a body which these Trustees have nothing to do with.... [In our Brief] you will find it clearly stated that the General Convention never entertained such an idea.

The Reply Brief, after disproving from the record the assertion that Mr. Kramph and his wife were affiliated with Convention, notes the insistence of the Trustees that the Academy is teaching a doctrine unknown at the time of Kramphs death, and their implication that it is immoral. On this it says, The doctrine taught by the Academy is based solely on the Writings of Swedenborg. . . .

The doctrine with regard to conjugial love is based on Swedenborgs work of that name. This work was well known to Mrs. Kramph, who was a reader of the Writings and an intimate friend of Mr. Benade. The devise was to teach the doctrines laid down in the Writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg. The Supreme Court had decided that such a devise was valid, and the lower Court had found that the Academy did teach the doctrines ... laid down in the Writings of the Hon. Emanuel Swedenborg.

When Mr. Kramph made his will the General Convention was in existence. Its name is not mentioned in the will. At that same time other New Church institutions existed, in no way identified with the General Convention. From 1840 until the time of his death, Mr. Kramph was not a member of Convention.

Neither were his Trustees, Executors, etc., during his lifetime. He belonged to the Lancaster Society, which was entirely independent of General Convention. He

WAS NOT A MEMBER OF CONVENTION AND WAS NOT IN SYMPATHY WITH CONVENTION. HE DID NOT, BY ANY MANNER OF IMPLICATION, SUGGEST THAT CONVENTION SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FOUNDING OR SUPERVISION OF THE INSTITUTION. NO PARTICULAR CONNECTION WITH ANY NEW CHURCH BODY OR ORGANIZATION WAS PRESCRIBED. THE WILL REQUIRED BUT THE TEACHING OF THE DOCTRINES LAID DOWN IN THE WRITINGS.

The Reply then notes the inapplicableness of the cases cited by the Trustees. They all referred to devises or conveyances where the testator had in mind a particular congregation, but in the present case Mr. Kramph when he provided for universal New Church education was not a member of the Convention, was not in sympathy with it, and did not in any way imply that Convention should have anything to do with the founding or supervision of the institution.

III. THE ACADEMY DOES NOT FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TESTATORS WILL AND THE FUND SHOULD BE AWARDED TO THE TRUSTEES.

After quoting the requirements of the will, the Trustees continue:

As we have seen, the Academy is not a university of the New Jerusalem as recognized and understood by Kramph at the time of his death. (In oral argument Mr. Johnson stated, This Academy was founded in 1897 by people entirely outside of the New Church, as contemplated by the Will.) And furthermore it is not within the consolidated city of Philadelphia. It is located, according to their JOURNAL OF EDUCATION for 1901 (p. 39), fifteen miles to the northeast of Philadelphia, and, according to their reply paper book (p. 14), about one third of a mile outside the consolidated city of Philadelphia. We are unable to account for the fourteen and two third miles, except by over-zealousness of counsel. The testator desired the university to be a Philadelphia institution, located within the limits of the city, and the Academy fails in this regard.

The Reply Brief calls attention to the substitution of located for founded, and adds: No one has been heard to deny that the Academy was founded in Philadelphia, and that it is a Philadelphia institution

The Trustees continue:

The testator was very explicit in stating the character of the University of the New Jerusalem which was to be founded by the trustees....

The testator did not intend to endow a general educational institute, such as the Academy is. He did intend, however, a university for New Church Education, and for the education of New Church Ministers.

He did not intend to endow a girls seminary, which is a very important, if not the most important, department of the Academy, and in which are enrolled, according to the JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 1901 (pp. 75-78), quite as many pupils from 1884 to 1901 as in the collegiate, theological and intermediate departments from 1877 to 1901. The testators bounty was for the education of young men and not for the education of young women.

He did not intend the publishing of books, pamphlets and other printed matter, for which purpose the Academy was chartered.

He did not intend the establishment of a library for which the Academy was chartered.

The testator says nothing about the purpose of propagating the Heavenly Doctrines of the New Jerusalem and establishing the New Church signified in the Apocalypse of the New Jerusalem, which is the avowed purpose of the Academy as set forth in its charter. The Academy was organized, says Odhner (p. 98), in 1876, and from the beginning the Academy raised the standard of loyalty to the Heavenly Doctrines, and this loyalty necessarily involved the complete acceptance of the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE as a divine revelation, as the word of the Lord in his second coming given to the New Church to be received in faith and obeyed in life.

The Academy was organized for the express purpose of promulgating the new doctrine of permissibility; and to say that such was the intent of the testator in 1858, when such a doctrine was neither believed nor taught by the church as he knew it, is an absurdity.

In oral argument, Mr. Johnson, speaking on the purposes of the University contemplated in the will, said: It is for the purpose of education in New Church doctrine.... It is preeminently and only a church university for education in the doctrines of that Church. Now let us see what the [Academys] Charter is.... In the first place, it is founded not as a university, but an Academy. (The speaker here read from the Charter, the objects of the Academy, p. 142, II.) In the first place it is not confined to Church education; but it is for the purpose of promoting education in all its forms.... The Kramph University is to devote its energies only to one purpose, to the purpose of a New Church education.

A third objection to the Academy was that it was not under a body of Trustees (but, as was added in oral argument under Directors or Managers, and with no requirement that they shall be members of the New Church).

The vice of the Academys position is in the fact that it is not under the care and superintendence of the Trustees named in Kramphs will or their successors. The chartered university contemplated by the testator was one chartered by the Trustees of his will. It is inconceivable, after the way in which the testator so very carefully directed the manner of the selection of Trustees, who were to be morally and spiritually bound, that he intended that a mere volunteer, with whom his Trustees (except Benade) had no connection,* should be entitled to the bequest.

The bequest is given to the Trustees for the purpose of endowing a university of the New Jerusalem.

* Two others of the original Trustees were also connected with the Academy, namely, Messrs. Burnham and R. L. Tafel.

The Academy relies upon the proviso: And provided further that whenever a perpetual charter for the establishment of such a New Church University shall be obtained, the above-mentioned Trustees, or if prior to the final settlement other Trustees should have been appointed by charter, my executors shall transfer all the rights and trust given to them by this my last will and testament, to the Trustees then and in that case lawfully appointed and constituted in and by said charter.

The testator, of course, was aware that when the Trustees incorporated there would necessarily be a change in the personnel of the board. Some would probably be dead and others resign, and a university would require a larger board of Trustees. This provision does nothing more than complete the scheme of the testator in directing the executors to transfer to his Trustees, whoever they might be at that time, if incorporated, all the rights and trusts conferred upon the seven original Trustees by his will. His solicitude about the personnel of the Board of Trustees is only consistent with the intent that they should be the incorporators of the university. The sequence of the paragraphs of the will is important, for it will be observed that in all of these provisions before the proviso relied upon by the Academy, the testator refers to the aforesaid and said New Church University, to wit, the one to be founded by the Trustees, for no other university had been theretofore mentioned in the will. After the proviso relied upon by the Academy, the testator again refers to the original Trustees and carefully provides for their perpetuation. The personnel of the seven original Trustees and their successors was uttermost in the testators mind; they were the ones to carry out the trust to found and establish the university and must be carefully chosen. Obviously, the proviso relied upon by the Academy referred only to the incorporation of the original seven Trustees or their successors before the final settlement of the estate, else why this otherwise insensible arrangement of the provisions of the will?

The Brief also adduces the provision as to the successor-Trustees that they shall be well known and undoubted New Churchmen, and that two of them shall live in Lancaster and two in Philadelphia These provisions would be to no purpose if the Academy is entitled to the bequesta mere volunteer with no restrictions as to the personnel of its Trustees, none of whom reside in Philadelphia or Lancaster.

It was to prevent such an occurrence that the testator expressly stipulated that nothing should be contained in the Charter of the University in any manner contrary to the intents of his will.

The words in the will, Board of Trustees for the purpose of establishing a University of the new Jerusalem, etc., give positive indication of the testators intention that the seven original Trustees or their successors should establish a university.... No other interpretation of the will is possible. How can the Academy claim this fundnot having been established by the Trustees under the will?

The Reply Brief passes by the above arguments, except that it notes the claim that the Academy is not for universal New Church education, because the testator did not intend to endow a general educational institute such as the Academy is. The objection (it continues) seems directed at the growth of the Academy, but it ignores the fact that the will provides ... for universal New Church education ... AND for the education of ministers. The will shows no intention of restricting the purposes of the institution within narrow lines.

13

FINAL DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE ACADEMY.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Eastern District.

ESTATE OF FREDERICK J. KRAMPH, DECEASED.

(1) Appeal of the Academy of the New Church, No. 112, of January Term, 1909; (2) Appeal of Wm. McGeorge, Jr., Rev. Wm. L. Worcester, Rev. Frank Sewall et al., Trustees, No. 113, January Term, 1909.

Appeals from the decree of the Orphans Court of Lancaster County, distributing the estate of Frederick J. Kramph, deceased.

Stewart, J.

These appeals are from the final administration by the Orphans Court of Lancaster County, distributing the estate of Frederick J. Kramph, who died more than fifty years ago, testate. By his will the testator, after making provisions for his widow and children, and making certain other bequests, gave the net balance of his whole estate to seven trustees, naming them, and their successors, In trust, for the purpose of endowing a university of the New Jerusalem, to be founded in the Consolidated City of Philadelphia, for Universal New Church education in these United States; and for the education of New Church Ministers, who are to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, as laid down in the Writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg--said New Church University to be under the care and superintendence of a body of Trustees rendered corporate by a perpetual charter legally obtained. The net balance of the estate as now ascertained is $38,785.

In the distribution proceedings in the court below, certain of the heirs at law of the testator appeared, and claimed the funds on the ground of the system of conduct and morals as professed by Swedenborg, and as taught in his writings, as repugnant to the law of the land, and that the bequest to endow an institution for the inculcation of said doctrine is void as offending against established public policy; this view prevailed with the auditing judge and the fund was awarded to the heirs at law. From this adjudication two appeals were taken; one by certain persons claiming to be the regularly appointed successors of the Trustees named in the will; the other by the Academy of the New Church, an incorporated institution of learning claiming that it conformed to the description of the university contemplated by the testator, and that it is therefore the proper and only object of the testators bounty. These appeals were twice heard. Following the first hearing, this order was made by the court:

June 22, 1909. The judges who heard this case are unanimously of the opinion that the decree must be reversed. It cannot be sustained on any ground whatever. But we are not entirely agreed as to which of the parties claiming as legatees comes most clearly within the expressed intent of the testator. This question is, therefore, ordered to be reargued on behalf of these claimants, at Pittsburgh, in the first month of October.

This order sustaining the bequest eliminated the heirs at law from the controversy. The ground on which our united concurrence in rejecting the conclusions reached by the learned judge of the Orphans Court rested was, that while there are writings of Emanuel Swedenborg which may be susceptible of a construction which would make them obnoxious to certain of our common standards of morality, yet it does not appear that such writings constitute any part of the religious doctrines of the New Jerusalem Church, at least not with that interpretation put on them which would make them offend. Upon this branch of the case we need not enlarge further.

We are now, therefore, concerned only with the need not dispute between those claiming as Trustees under the will, and the Academy of the New Church. We have above quoted from the will the devise proper. This follows: All moneys which may accumulate or come in, shall be immediately invested in real estate or perpetual ground rents, all the incomes of which are to remain the unalienable property of the said New Church University, and be appropriated for the purposes set forth in the charter. Provided, that my aforementioned Trustees shall not transfer any part of the of my property designated for the benefit of the said New Church University, until sufficient funds are provided, either by subscription or endowments, of other contributors, or by the accumulation of this bequest, to yield, independently of the cost of university buildings, a clear annual income of $4 000. And, provided further, that whenever a perpetual charter for the establishment of such a New Church University shall be obtained, the above-mentioned Trustees, or if prior to the final settlement, other Trustees should have been appointed by charter, my Executors shall transfer all the rights and trusts given to them by this, my last will and testament, to the Trustees then and in that lawfully appointed and constituted in and by said charter.

Manifestly, the ultimate end the testator had in view was the establishment of an institution for universal New Church education This he expected to accomplish in one of two ways; either by encouraging the establishment of such an institution by others of like faith and zeal with himself, by providing a permanent fund to the extent of the net balance of his estate, for the support and maintenance of such institution by them established, and as an inducement [to] the effort on their part; or, failing in this, by withholding his bounty until with its accumulations, it would itself be adequate in amount for the purpose. This much is made manifest by the provision that no part of the income of the particular property designated for the benefit of the said New Church University shall be transferred until sufficient funds are provided, either by subscription or endowments of other contributors, or by the accumulation of this bequest, to yield independently of the cost of the university buildings, a clear annual income of $4,000.

It was only in the latter event that active duty was imposed on the Trustees in connection with the funding and establishing of the University. This appears from the provision directing that payment be made by the executors whenever a perpetual charter for the establishment of such a University shall be obtained (by) the above-named Trustees; or if prior to the final settlement other trustees shall have been appointed by charter, in such case to pay over to the Trustees then and in that case lawfully appointed and constituted in and by the charter. We think it apparent beyond reasonable doubt that the word by as we have here introduced it was unintentionally omitted from the original will. Its use is necessary to make the provision entirely intelligible, which without it would be unmeaning. The testator was here providing for a situation which, if it happened, would leave the Trustees virtually without any functions whatever to discharge. As we read the will, the question then presented is, does such situation as was contemplated by the testator now exist; that is to say, has a perpetual charter for the establishment of such a New Church University as the testator had in mind been obtained, and does such University exist? If so, the fund belongs to the institution so chartered, and is payable to its Trustees for the purposes of the trust, to wit, the endowment of the institution. If no such institution has been established, then the final settlement having been made of the estate, the fund belongs to the Trustees named in the will, upon the further trust, to accumulate until the fund is sufficient to establish such an institution in the manner indicated by the testator, and then apply directly to the end testator had in view. The Academy of the New Church, one of the appellants, is an incorporated institution of learning, chartered in 1877.

It is located in the suburbs of the City of Philadelphia, where it owns and occupies some eighty-seven acres of land on which are erected the necessary college buildings, together valued at $252,035.06; and, in addition, it has an endowment fund yielding a sum very much in excess of the $4,000 required by the provisions of the will. As described in its charter, the Academy was incorporated for the promotion of education in all its various forms; one special purpose being the education of young men for the ministry; and, generally, the propagation of the heavenly doctrines of the New Jerusalem and establishing the New Church signified in the Apocalypse by the New Jerusalem. We have this finding by the auditing judge: This incorporated New Church University is for New Church education in these United States, and for the education of New Church ministers who are educated (sic) to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg. The Academy of the General Church, with its university buildings at Bryn Athyn, exactly meets the requirements imposed by the testator upon the beneficiary intended by him. If we are to accept this conclusion of fact, then, according to the interpretation we have given the will, the question is resolved. But, it is urged that the conclusion cannot be accepted, since it overlooks certain clearly defined requirements of the will. It is pointed out that the will contemplates the establishment of a university within the limits of the consolidated City of Philadelphia; whereas, the Academy is outside the corporate limits. And again, it is insisted that the Academy of the New Church is controlled by and is an of the General Church of the New Jerusalem, a schismatic body of New Churchmen not connected with the General Convention, nor in existence at the time of Kramphs death. As to the first objection, it is only necessary to say that having regard to the purposes and objects the testator had in view, this in no sense can be said to be a material variance.

It is impossible to conceive of any purpose the testator had in his mind which could not be quite as well secured by a University within the suburbs of Philadelphia as by one located immediately across the dividing line and within the city limits. If we eliminate for a moment the question raised by the second objection, and assume that the Academy in all respects, except that of location, conforms to the requirements of the will, and is meeting all demands, could it be urged that the general intent of the testator, in connection with his bequest, would be better effectuated by the establishment of another distinct university with like aims and objects, but feebler in its aims, within the limits of Philadelphia, than by applying his bounty to the strengthening of the institution already established? We think manifestly not. Besides, if we were to deny the bounty to the Academy to await the establishment of a proper institution within the city limits, so far as the evidence shows, it would be a postponement for such a length of time as would to a large degree disappoint the charity. Under the terms of the will the fund would only become available for that purpose when, supplemented by its own accretions and the subscriptions of others, it would yield independently of the cost of the University buildings a clear annual income of $4,000. It does not appear that a single dollar has been subscribed or that any effort whatever has been made by others to establish an institution of this description within the city limits, notwithstanding the inducement held out by the testator in the matter of endowment. For more than fifty years the will of the testator has been inviting such effort without any response having been made. Except as such institution be established through this bequest alone, there is little reason to expect that it ever will be established. Another fifty years, making a hundred, since the death of the testator, must elapse before the charity could become effective. This might not utterly defeat it, but that it would fail to meet the testators expectation cannot be questioned.

Under the general jurisdiction of a Court of Chancery to administer the estate of a charity, it has power to vary the precise terms of the charitable trust when necessary. This rule is too well established to be doubted. It is thus expressed by Lowrie, C. J., in City of Philadelphia vs. Girards Heirs, 45 Pa. 9: When a definite function or duty is to be performed, and it cannot be done in exact conformity with the scheme of the person or persons who have provided for it, it must be performed with as close approximation to that scheme as reasonably practicable; and so, of course, it must be enforced. It is the doctrine of approximation, and it is not confined to the administration of charity, but. is equally applicable to all devises and contracts wherein the future is provided for, and it is an essential element of equity jurisprudence We accordingly hold that the fact that the Academy is located not within, but a short distance outside, the limits of the consolidated City of Philadelphia, should not be allowed to interfere with its capacity to take under the will of this testator.

The next objection is based on a misapprehension of the real question. We are not here dealing with a bequest to a denominational church, or to any subordinate body of such church. As we have construed the will, the bequest is to the Trustees of an established institution of learning, which, judging from its charter, is in subordination to no ecclesiastical body, but is subject only to the control of its own trustees, just as the will provides that the institution contemplated by the testator should be. Its only obligation is to observe and fulfill the functions for which it was chartered, the propagation of heavenly doctrines of the New Jerusalem, and establishing the New Church signified in the Apocalypse by the New Jerusalem, promoting education in all its forms, educating young men for the ministry, publishing books, etc. The bequest being direct to the Trustees, except; as it can be made to appear that it was in ease of some particular church body to which the Academy is subordinated, it must go to and be vested in the Trustees, no matter how many different churches or denominations claim to be the true interpreters of the doctrines of the New Jerusalem, as laid down in the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

Therefore it is that the fact that, subsequent to the death of testator, divisions grew up between those professing the faith of Swedenborg, resulting in the establishment of a new confederation styling itself the General Church of the New Jerusalem, as distinguished from the original confederation known as the General Convention, is a matter of no significance. Were the dispute over property belonging to the General Church before the separation, or schism, or whatever it may be, it would be for the Court to decide which body was in harmony with its own laws, usages and customs, as accepted by the body before the division took place. McGinnis vs. Watson, 41 Pa. 9. In a certain case the inquiry might be whether the body holding the property was holding or teaching a different doctrine, or using a form of worship so far variant as to defeat the declared objects of the trust. Watson vs. Jones, 13 Wallace 679. But no such question can arise here. All the Court in this case has to do is to identify the object of the testators bounty. Is this Academy that object? If it be dedicated to universal New Church education, the education of New Church ministers to teach the doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg, then it is: and we are not called upon to decide as between a General Convention and the General Church, which one the more intelligently interprets and understands the teachings and doctrines of Swedenborg. So far as denominational name is material, such fundamental distinctions as exist between trinitarians and unitarians may be resorted to define and limit the trust, but not usually lesser and more refined shades of doctrine existing in different branches of the same church. Ayres vs. Weed, 16 Conn. 291; Hinckley vs. Thatcher, 139 Mass. 477.

The difference between the doctrine taught by the Academy and that accepted by the adherents of the General Convention results simply from different interpretation of the same writings. Both alike rest on the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, and both alike have respect to these as supreme authority. It is not for us to decide between them. Our conclusion is that the Academy of the New Church, an incorporation chartered under the laws of the state, meets all the requirements of the will, and therefore is the institution through which the testators charity is to be administered. The decree in this case is reversed, and it is now ordered and decreed that the balance for distribution, to wit, the sum of $38,785.00, with any accumulations, if any, be paid over by the accountants to the Academy of the New Church, the appellant in No. 112, January Term, 1909; the costs of both appeals to be paid out of the fund.

ESTATE OF FREDERICK J. KRAMPH, DECEASED.

Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.:

We did not sit when this case was first argued and, therefore express no opinion on the question adjudicated by the decision of the sitting judges and embodied in the order of June 22, 1909. On the re-argument before the full bench the only question heard and determined was: Which of the two parties claiming as legatees is entitled to the fund awaiting distribution.

PART V.

The Attitude of the General Convention.

[blank page]

PART V.

THE ATTITUDE OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION

1.

MR. MCGEORGE AND THE NEWSPAPERS.

The day following the first day of the hearing before Judge Smith, several of the Philadelphia newspapers commenced a sensational exploitation of the Kramph Case, and this was renewed on each occasion that the case came before the Court. After the first Decision had been handed down (July 12) the fame of this case began to spread, notices of it appearing in newspapers throughout the United States and in Sweden, Germany, and other countries. These notices, however, were rarely characterized by sensationalism, and sometimes included letters defending Swedenborg; but in Philadelphia, reports and interviews were frequently printed with headlines announcing Free Love and similar suggestive terms, and they contained insinuations against the teachings of Swedenborg in general, and of the Bryn Athyn Academy in particular. One paper printed extensive quotations from CONJUGIAL LOVE, including the fourteen propositions of the chapter on Fornication,--all grossly perverted by comment. But, happily, it is needless to enter into these ignorant and impure misrepresentations, for we would be loath to inflict them on the reader. We propose to notice the newspapers, therefore, only so far as they directly affect the issue between the Academy and the General Convention.

Throughout the storm of newspaper slander, the leaders of the Academy refused to make any public statement, or to take any part in the newspaper agitation.

Mr. Worcester also pursued the same policy. But this was not the policy of Mr. McGeorge. On the other hand, he took more than one occasion to exploit his animus toward the Academy, intimating something of the base slanders current in the General Convention, and publicly confirming the newspaper charge against the Academy of immoral teaching.

In an interview printed in the Philadelphia North American, Ledger, of July 3, Mr. McGeorge is reported as stating: Swedenborg surely wrote for the conditions of his own time, for he arrays himself against such theories and practices in his doctrinal works.*

* As will be noted later, this characterization of CONJUGIAL LOVE was repudiated by Mr. Worcester (see p. 421).

After the Decision, the Philadelphia North American, of July 15, printed an interview, or rather, an attempted interview, with Mr. Doering at Bryn Athyn; but, though the article was full of insinuations, the only positive statement the writer could report that bore on the case was that the division between the General Church and the Convention was entirely over questions of administration.

This was flatly denied by Mr. McGeorge, who appears in an interview, published by the Philadelphia North American of the following day, and headed, Moral Code of Girls School Repudiated. Leading Swedenborgian Condemns Teachings at New Academy. In this interview Mr. McGeorge flatly denied Mr. Doerings assertion that this break was occasioned by a dispute over administrative questions.

Indeed (he declared) the difference had its origin in the objection of the General Conference [Convention] to the teaching at the Bryn Athyn College, Theological and Normal and Girls School of those portions of Swedenborgs work on SCORTATORY LOVE, in which the author is by some interpreted as saying that for some temperaments certain relations outside the married state are not incompatible with the preservation of the purity of true conjugial principle.

This was the first public intimation that the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE was to be called a work on SCORTATORY LOVE. This nomenclature had been introduced in the WOMENS PETITION (see P. 32), and has since been deliberately adopted by the General Convention (see pp. 359, seq.; 427, seq.)

If there was any one thing that Swedenborg did not believe in (said Mr. McGeorge) it was free love. So strenuous is he about this that he insists that a man must not only be pure in act, but also in thought, will and intention.

Swedenborg was born in 1688 and died in 1779, and that is a good while ago, and many changes have taken place since then. In Sweden and on the continent in Swedenborgs days men were not free to marry without the consent of their parents or guardians, until they were established in business and until certain military duty had been rendered by them to the government. This enforced celibacy led to the very grossest evils.

In a book which he himself describes as a moral rather than a theological work (the work on CONJUGIAL AND SCORTATORY LOVE), Swedenborg discriminates between the heinousness of these various evils, and counsels those who cannot or will not restrain themselves to confine themselves to the milder forms.

But this had to do simply with conditions in his day, not in the present, and ever and always he points out that all the forms are evil, and that if a man will look to the Lord for help, He will enable him to overcome his temptations.

Therefore in England and America, and wherever Swedenborg is accepted as a religious teacher, the church has never taught anything but absolute purity.

In 1876 the Academy was founded, and under the plea of loyalty to Swedenborg commenced to teach the doctrine, or rather the rule of conduct enunciated for other times and other climes.* Always, however, the members of the Academy have claimed that they did not practice this rule, though why one should preach what he does not practice has always seemed very mysterious.

* Mr. McGeorge here, as in his Brief (pp. 274, 285, 287), tacitly admits that the Academy does teach what Swedenborg has written, his position being that Swedenborgs teaching was enunciated merely for other times. He repudiates it only as having any present application. It may also be noted, that here Mr. McGeorge, contrary to the contention of his Brief, and also of the position held by the General Convention, characterizes Swedenborgs teaching in the Second part of CONJUGIAL LOVE as a rule of conduct. See pp. 279, 281, 285.

In 1878, at a Convention held in Boston, it was charged that the Academy was teaching the doctrine, and as a result, in 1879, the Council of Ministers of the General Convention issued an address, showing that this doctrine was contrary to the express teachings of Swedenborg in his great theological books, the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION and THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE, wherein the Commandments are explained.....

After this Convention the matter was allowed to rest for several years, but the criticism of the Academy for this and for the uncharitable attitude of its members toward Christians generally produced a divergence of feeling. In consequence of that the Academy seceded from the General Convention in 1891.

Again in 1903 the women of the Church were so scandalized by reports as to what the Academy taught that they introduced a memorial in the Convention which led to--here follows the Resolution of 1903. (See p. 75.)

A few days afterwards (July 19) in an interview in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Mr. McGeorge again discusses the teaching of the Academy at Bryn Athyn. Asked whether it taught Free Love, he says:

No! The worst enemy of the Academy would never say they taught free love. Thats a horrible misnomer. The trouble with the Academy is this: They claim that thy were more loyal to the teachings of Swedenborg than anyone else, and inasmuch as Swedenborg taught certain things in his work on INSANE DELIGHTS OF SCORTATORY LOVE, that they were in duty bound to teach it also.*

* Mr. McGeorge here implies that the Academy is condemned because it felt in duty bound to teach what Swedenborg teaches (see preceding note).

They overlooked the fact that in his distinctively theological books Swedenborg pointed out that any violation of the Seventh Commandment was a sin.

It ought to be said, too, about the Academy that they always claimed that while they taught the doctrine of allowableness, they did not practice it, and from my knowledge of a great many members of the Academy I am absolutely sure they do not.

Compare Mr. Seward, p. 194.

The great objection the General Convention has to the teaching of this subject by the Academy is that it is contrary to Swedenborg himself and ... the law of Pennsylvania.

Swedenborg always insisted that a good Christian and a good citizen must obey the law of the land unless that should be absolutely immoral....

This contest over the legacy will probably prove the deathblow of the Academy....

The Convention is not at all interested in the money question and the Trustees ... have given the Academy to understand that if they would cease to teach this doctrine of allowableness and would confine themselves to the teaching of Swedenborg as the vast majority of his believers in all parts of the world taught and believed, they would cheerfully withdraw objection to the Academys receiving the money.

Mr. McGeorge was silent for some months after this defense of the Academy, but on March 10, 1909, in an interview printed in the Philadelphia North American, he again appears, and this time in an open statement of all the charges he had previously only implied. He is defining the difference between Convention and the Academy. After his usual characterization of the second part of CONJUGIAL LOVE as intended merely for conditions in Sweden, etc., he continues that despite the changed conditions at this day, despite Swedenborgs warnings against these things as evils, the Academy literally accepts the Second Part of this book as a rule of life for its members, and teaches from it that it is [not] unlawful under certain conditions, of which every man is apparently to be the judge, to violate the Seventh Commandment.

2.

EXCUSES.

In the meantime while the newspapers were discussing the morality of Swedenborgs teachings, much was going on in the New Church itself that throws light on the attitude of the various parties concerned, not only toward the Academy, but, what is of chief importance and interest, toward the Writings.

The introduction into the civil courts of charges against the teachings of the Academy, had led to some results not anticipated by those who were responsible for this introduction. It had led the lawyers for the Trustees to charge possible immorality against the Doctrines themselves,* and it had led the Court to outlaw every bequest intended for the promulgation of those Doctrines.

* See note on p. 415.

The conduct of the cave by the Trustees could lead to no other conclusion than that the question of CONJUGIAL LOVE was brought before the civil tribunal with deliberation and forethought, and this seemed the more evident in view of the fact that the inevitable consequences of this step had been clearly pointed out.

Some of you gentlemen (wrote Mr. Pitcairn, addressing the Trustees on December 17, 1907) seemed to feel the other day that it was a pity this dispute should be dealt with formally and publicly. The above suggestion [that Trustees should consult with Counsel for the Academy] is made for the purpose of learning whether formality and publicity can be avoided. If the New Church is to be made the subject of notoriety, the responsibility must rest with you. (See p. 129.)

Certainly the Academy had no intention of bringing before the civil courts a question of the Doctrine of the New Church, being well aware of the falsifications and perversions to which it would be subjected.

The Academy did, indeed, adopt a Declaration to be presented to the Court; but it had no intention of presenting it unless such step became necessary. It had reason to suppose that the Trustees might raise the question in Court, for both Mr. McGeorge and Mr. Worcester had stated explicitly that their real objection to the Academys receiving the bequest; was the teaching of that body with regard to the latter part of CONJUGIAL LOVE. And though it seemed hardly credible that the Trustees would bring before a legal Court the question of the true interpretation of this work, vet it was natural to suppose the possibility of this being done. Moreover, shortly before the audit, it was rumored that this was actually to be done. The Academy, therefore, came into Court not wholly unprepared. But it took no active step in the matter, being content to present its legal case and there rest. Nothing was said about the doctrines beyond the testimony that the Academy taught the Doctrines of the New Jerusalem as laid down in the Writings of the lion. Emanuel Swedenborg.

Neither the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE nor the Declaration were mentioned until Mr. Coyle commenced his attack on the teachings of the Academy as contrary to the Doctrines of the New Church and subversive of morality. It then became necessary, not only for the legal case, but, what is of far greater importance, for the sake of the New Church, to bear testimony to the Heavenly Doctrine. The work on CONJUGIAL, LOVE was therefore put in evidence both in Latin and in English, and with it, the Declaration.

As stated above, there seemed to be no doubt but that the course pursued by the Trustees had been deliberately adopted. A few days after the first decision, however, it began to develop that the Trustees would deny all responsibility for the main lines on which their case had been conducted. The first intimation of this, received by the Academy, was contained in a correspondence between Messrs. Alden and Worcester. Writing on July 26, 1908, Mr. Worcester, after denying some statement that had been attributed to him by a Philadelphia newspaper, continued:

I feel like telling you another thing; for I believe you will know that I speak the truth in doing so. We had absolutely no intention of bringing up this question of doctrine in the Court. On the train, going to Lancaster, me conferred again, and it was distinctly understood that we intended only to present our claim to being recognized as Trustees. Why events were allowed to take the turn they did I do not know.

Mr. Worcester continued that, personally, he strongly felt the uselessness of trying to deal with such matters in the Courts.

Answering, on August 2d, Mr. Alden referred to Mr. Worcesters statement as fairly startling. He did not question Mr. Worcesters sincerity, but he did

feel some doubt as to whether Mr. McGeorge, whom I suppose you include with yourself in the use of the term we was innocent of such intention. This attack on points of doctrine was absolutely all the ammunition which Mr. Coyle had with which he could possibly hope to do any execution. The plea of the Trustees to take the fund was so flimsy that I cannot understand how you could have had a question concerning it....

The only hope of Mr. Coyle... lay in his bringing these things [i. e., the contents of CONJUGIAL LOVE] before the Court, which he certainly did..... And now you tell me that there was not any intention to use this essential means to the gaining of the end desired.... It is not, of course, to be supposed that Mr. Coyle acted without instructions or against instructions. There appears to be but one explanation of the event, and that is that it was an after-thought of Mr. McGeorge while the case was under way in Court. But assuming this ... I cannot understand, since it was not your intention that this doctrinal question should be brought forward, why you did not protest, and effectively, as you certainly had it in your power to do. You saw what was going on in the cross-examination of Mr. Doering the first day. There was ample opportunity during the week which passed before the case was renewed ... for you to enter your protest and veto; but so far as the appearance goes, you were an assenting participant in the presentation of the case, making only one objection to a most flagrant lie, and this too late to be of any use. (See p. 231.)

I do believe that you did not yourself intend to bring up the question of doctrine in Court.... But I am unable to think that you call speak for Mr. McGeorge in this. You know the letter which he wrote to Mr. Pitcairn and the other Trustees, in which he said that the Academy was no more New Church than the Catholic school of St. Charles Borromeo.... Now on what possible grounds other than that of doctrine could an attach be made on the Academy as not being New Church?

To this letter Mr. Worcester replied, on August 5th, briefly explaining that

Mr. Coyle intended and tried to prove that the Academy was not New Church in that it does not represent the main body of the New Church, but a body which withdrew, as its leader stated, for fundamental doctrinal differences I believe that this was ... all that he wished to prove, and he would not have gone further had he not been thwarted by the repeated rulings of the Court. I think also that you are unjust to Mr. McGeorge in supposing that he intended things to take the turn they did. When Mr. Doerings testimony had been given, a week or a month did not give us the power to take it back.

Mr. Worcester added that he did not believe the claim of the Trustees to decide as to the merits of any institution claiming under the will was a weak one. It was their responsibility to so decide.

Thus far Mr. Worcester; but soon Mr. McGeorge was to come out in a semi-public way in his own defense.

While the above-mentioned correspondence was going on, NEW CHURCH LIFE for August, 1908, appeared with an editorial on the Kramph Case.

After briefly reviewing the case this editorial concluded:

It should be known and understood that the burden of the charge against a work of Divine Revelation rests ou the shoulders, not of professed enemies of the New Church, but of men who are members of that Church, and also of the General Convention; for their argument before the Court was that the teachings of the Academy were immoral, whether opposed to Divine Revelation or not; that if these teachings were not in accordance with the Writings of Swedenborg then the Academy should be defeated as not having fulfilled the requirements of the will; but that if those teachings were in accordance with the Writings, then the Academy should be defeated as teaching what is immoral and opposed to law and polity.* The judge took the latter of these alternative views.

* That this was the position taken by the Trustees (see pp. 183, 190, 217, 232, 233, 262, 387, 390; which was noted by the heirs (pp. 253, 257).

On the appearance of this editorial, the Rev. J. F. Buss, of London, wrote to Mr. McGeorge for information. Describing Mr. Busss letter, Mr. McGeorge, in a communication to Mr. Pitcairn, dated March 22, 1909, says:

I had been charged with doing something that it was believed no New Churchman could do,... and I was most solemnly adjured to write a letter categorically admitting or denying the allegations in LIFE. I was advised that the letter would be shown to others.

In view of this last sentence, Mr. McGeorges answer to Mr. Buss was probably regarded as somewhat in the nature of a public document; as a matter of fact it was freely shown to interested persons in London. In this answer, dated October 16, 1908, Mr. McGeorge says, among other things:

I do not think there is a single one of the Trustees, certainly not one of those who represent the General Convention, who is of the evil nature of that bird that would foul its own nest.

We had not the slightest idea of calling to the attention of the Court our objections to the Academy, or to their peculiar teachings from CONJUGIAL LOVE, but we relied upon the general principle of law which our Supreme Court has upheld again and again, that where a bequest of that kind is made to the Trustees for a Church Institution and there has been a split in the Church, that body which represents the teaching, the discipline and the doctrine of the Church at the time of the creation of the trust or execution of the will is the one entitled rather than the body which has split off at a later date. You will observe that if the case had been conducted on these lines it would never have been necessary to call attention to the teaching or supposed teaching of CONJUGIAL LOVE.

When the witness for the Academy, the Rev. Mr. Doering, was on the stand he would not answer the questions of our lawyer which would have established the fact that the Academy was the split body and which would have shown that when the General Church split off from the Convention in 1891 they themselves asserted that the doctrinal differences between that body and the General Convention were fundamental in their nature--a fact which would have settled the whole question without going into what were the differences at all. He failed to answer, and the Court, not understanding the matter, disallowed a great many of the questions that were asked by our lawyer, until he saw he was getting the worst of it, and would be ruled out of Court in a very short time, when suddenly, and without the least intimation to the Trustees, he asked a question which will be indicated in a moment, which put the fat all in the fire. It appears that just before the trial, one of the Trustees living in Lancaster had given to Mr. Coyle a book published by the Academy, and he had read it, with a good deal of horror and disgust, and being indignant with the evasion of the witness (Doering), and perhaps angered by the continued opposition of the Court, he suddenly asked the question whether the Academy taught that carnal intercourse between man and woman outside of the marriage relation was allowable.

Later, in the same letter, the writer acids:

You [Mr. Buss] have alluded in pretty strong terms to the utter betrayal of the New Church which my alleged position would seem to be, but you evidently do not know of the terrible thing which Bishop Pendleton said in the conclusion of his statement [DECLARATION].... It was to this effect, that if there was any fault in the matter the fault was in the revelation and not in their treatment of it. To me this is utter profanation. No man should dare to say such a thing. Mr. Pendleton knows that this revelation is a Divine Revelation, and he knows that it is absolutely pure and true....

He should not for one single second have permitted himself to make such a statement, which, I am sure, has brought our Church into such disrepute.

The paragraph of the DECLARATION which is thus characterized as utter profanation, is as follows:

From the summary of the Doctrine herein given, and the brief consideration presented, it will be seen, therefore, that if there is immorality anywhere it is in the doctrine itself, for which revelation is responsible. But the General Church of the New Jerusalem rejects this conclusion as enormous, and holds that the doctrine is not immoral, but eminently moral, and is a part of the Heavenly Doctrine, which has been given in mercy to mitigate and heal the miseries of mankind.

To intelligently consider the above explanations by Messrs. Worcester and McGeorge, note should be made of the series of questions, with their suggestive intimations, asked by Mr. Coyle, long before the question which definitely brought into Court the Doctrine of the New Church. (See p. 165, seq.) It may also be noted that, during the hearing Mr. McGeorge sat at Mr. Coyles elbow, and assisted in the conduct of the case. And, further, that, long before the hearing, counsel for the Trustees declared that the case against the Academy would rest on the alleged immorality of its teachings.*

* This was not known to the officials of the Academy, until several months afterwards (Cf. P. 412).

Worthy of note also in this connection is the correspondence between Messrs. McGeorge, Worcester and Pitcairn preceding the hearing, which throws much light on the attitude of the Trustees.

In this correspondence both Mr. McGeorge and Mr. Worcester declare themselves desirous of having the Court decide whether the fund should go to the University direct, or should be at the discretion of the Trustees.

In June, 1903, Mr. McGeorge writes: We have no desire to claim it for anybody, and he adds that if the Court decided that the Academy wits entitled, We should not resist. (See p. 112.) Again in June, 1907, he declares that if the Court decides for the Academy so far as I am concerned all the Trustees would cheerfully submit to such a decision, and, speaking for himself and Mr. Worcester, he adds: The Trustees realize that it will probably be impracticable to set up such an institution as Mr. Kramph did contemplate, and that the only feasible thing will be to turn the money over to the Academy, hoping the good in it will prevail p. 126). In December of the same year (1907) Mr. Worcester states that he would be absolutely satisfied with a decision of the Court (p. 129).

If the Trustees had come into Court on this ground, i. e., had they confined their contentions, to use Mr. Worcesters words, to presenting their claim to be recognized as Trustees (p. 413), the case would have been conducted on very different lines. This contention was indeed mentioned, but, until the final brief at Pittsburg, little attention was paid to it, and it formed but an insignificant part of the Trustees case.

At the very opening of the case it became clearly manifest that the Trustees were determined to prevent the Academy from receiving, whether they themselves mere recognized or not. From beginning to end their case was an attack on the Academy. Moreover, after the Lancaster Court had decided that the claim of the Academy under the will was valid, so far from cheerfully submitting to this phase of the decision, the attack against the Academy was taken up with even greater bitterness.

In the correspondence from which we have already quoted, Mr. Worcester and Mr. McGeorge also indicated that if the Court awarded the fund to the Trustees they would be unwilling to turn it over to the Academy. In his letter of June 19, 1907, Mr. McGeorge, after brushing aside as a bare technicality the objection as to the Academys location, continues: My objection had a much deeper root....

I understand Mr. Kramph to desire to provide for a New Church University, and the idea and standard that he had in his mind was the New Church as it was understood and accepted at the date of his will.... In my judgment the Academy is not and never was a New Church body, is not a Church at all, but in its essence is opposed to all the distinctive principles of the Lords New Church. He based this opinion on the Academys judgments about the states of others; on its Babylonish pretensions; on its disintegrating effect I and because some of its alleged teachings are contrary to the Decalogue (see p. 122). In December of the same year Mr. Worcester writes: If the Court decides that discretion rests with the Trustees, I can say for a majority at least of the Board that we would promptly and cheerfully award the money to the Academy but for one reason--the position that we understand the Academy to take upon the so-called permissions in CONJUGIAL LOVE (see p. 130).

It will be noticed that the majority of the Board have only one reason why the Academy is not entitled to receive the bequest, namely, its teaching in regard to conjugial love. If then they went into Court with no intention of bringing in the question of doctrine, and Mr. McGeorge confirms him in 1909 (p. 411), then their intention was to oppose the Academy on fictitious grounds, that is, to withhold from Court their real objection and to advance reasons which it must be presumed they themselves deemed of little weight. For had they judged them to be of any weight, then, granting their contention as to the Trusteeship, Mr. Worcester and the majority of the Board of Trustees would have been false to their trust in promptly and cheerfully awarding the money to the Academy, providing it would-not move to Philadelphia, not join the Convention--but give up one single teaching with regard to conjugial love.

The ground on which, as Mr. McGeorge now says, the Trustees intended to oppose the Academy, namely, its alleged secession from Convention, is a false and fictitious one.

And, whatever may have been the wish and intention as to the conduct of the case, it is not surprising that Counsel for the Trustees was well aware of their real objection to the Academy, and that, early in the proceedings, he brought out this objection, which they now say they had wished to conceal--though how they expected to introduce the question of secession from the General Convention and at the same time to make no mention of the doctrine which they falsely allege was the cause of that secession, is not explained.

3.

PAMPHLETS.

As the reports of the Kramph Case became known, efforts were made by several of the ministers of the General Convention to explain Swedenborgs Doctrine in the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE. This led to the printing of several pamphlets, expressive of more or less differing views. These we shall now briefly notice.

The Rev. William L. Worcesters Views.

The first pamphlet to be issued was by Mr. Worcester. In this pamphlet (SWEDENBORG ON MARRIAGE), after dwelling on the purity of Swedenborgs teachings on marriage love, Mr. Worcester says: Many persons doubtless wish that he had stopped with presenting this true ideal of marriage; and we may believe that he, most of all, would have been glad to leave the subject here. But duty required an examination of the abuses and opposites. Granting (continues Mr. Worcester) that an understanding of external evils is necessary to one who would deal as a
specialist with this disorder,... many will prefer to leave the knowledge to the expert,* and will wish only to ask whether Swedenborg supports the highest standard of morality.

* This is the first occurrence of the word expert in this connection (see p. 440).

Then without any inquiry as to what this highest standard of morality is, Mr. Worcester, having answered affirmatively, continues: The difficulty arises over certain chapters ... in which, on a hasty reading, Swedenborg may seem to speak with some degree of approval or tolerance of certain limited and carefully restricted sexual relations outside of marriage. But when Swedenborg speaks leniently of some evils he expressly and repeatedly states that he is then speaking of the spiritual state of the one who commits the wrong, and of the act as viewed from its interior motive.... He dwells upon relations of the sexes which are without religion and without the true spirit of marriage, which may explain his speaking of his book as not theological but chiefly moral.

It may be noted in passing that what Mr. Worcester says of the act as viewed from its interior motive, involves the Academys teaching, that when the interior motive, i. e., the end and purpose, is conjugial love, the man is in that love as to his interior man. (CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 452.) The Academy, however, would not add that acts within which was such interior motive were without religion, for they are governed by religion.

Mr. Worcester then speaks of the degrees of the evil of impurity more serious as they are actively opposed to and destructive of true marriage, and less serious as they approximate true marriage, the latter sometimes serving as means of protection or escape from greater evil. All impure thought, lust and act are evil, but

in some cases an evil may be an evil of outward conduct only, a desire of good and a possibility of good lying dormant within ... which is ... the means of the salvation of the wrongdoer. Moreover the conditions of weakness and ignorance and stress under which evil ... may not condemn the wrongdoer are not spoken of with approval; they are disorderly conditions which ... should be removed, and are removed for one who is brought up amid wholesome surroundings and with a living faith in the Savior....

We do not believe with some that Swedenborgs treatment of this evil is out of date, intended only to meet the disorderly conditions of Sweden in his time.

If Swedenborg were writing nom, he might conceivably illustrate by forms of the sexual evil more familiar to the present day, but his principles would be the same.

Two things are conspicuous in this pamphlet, namely:

1. That while the author admits of lesser evils approximating to true marriage, and of a man in these evils having a desire for good dormant within, yet he everywhere intimates that this state is brought about solely because of weakness, ignorance or stress. Such a statement, however, may be applied to evils of sin, as, for instance, to adultery; for when adultery is committed in ignorance, weakness or stress, there may be good dormant within. But the Writings point out a difference between adultery under such circumstances, and pellicacy and concubinage, namely, that in the latter conjugial love may be preserved with those in these evils, so far as they actively, i. e., in active thought and intention, look to and prefer conjugial love, and restrain themselves to something as it were analogous to marriage, whereas, in the former, excuse comes because of ignorance, weakness or stress, and because there was subsequent repentance.

In the pellicacy and concubinage spoken of, it is the active desire and effort from which restraint arises, that is regarded by the Lord, and that saves the man. But of this activity of good in the man himself Mr. Worcester gives no intimation.

2. The second point is Mr. Worcesters clear-cut repudiation of any thought that the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE was written solely for the Sweden of Swedenborgs day. This brings to us the remarkable contrast of one of the Trustees, the President of the Convention Theological School, denying what another of the Trustees, Mr. McGeorge, speaking in the name of them all, put before the Court as the General Conventions explanation of the chapters on Fornication and Concubinage, namely, that they were intended for Swedenborgs own time, and have no application now. (See p. 885, note, and cf. pp. 488-9.)

The Rev. John Whiteheads Views.

The next pamphlet to appear was A STUDY ... ON CONJUGIAL OR MARRIAGE LOVE by the Rev. John Whitehead. This was reprinted from the NEW CHURCH REVIEW, of January, 1909, and sent gratuitously to a large number of persons, including the members of the General Church.

The writer briefly reviews the First Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE, and then asks whether the fornication and concubinage spoken of by Swedenborg are contrary to the Sixth Commandment. He answers by quoting TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, NO. 313, where, after a specific reference to the various chapters of the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE, Swedenborg writes: These all are meant by this commandment in the natural sense, words which Mr. Whitehead at once interprets: All these, that is, fornication as well as adultery, are against this commandment in the natural sense, which is, of course, not what Swedenborg says. (See p. 424.)

Other passages are quoted to show that even the mildest forms of these evils, while not included by Swedenborg under the term, scortatory love, are yet to be shunned as sins against God. But the writer does not explain why some are not from scortatory love. The writer goes on to say that the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE simply describes degrees of evil, the milder ones being to those in the lower steps upwards out of hell. The words not unlawful (CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 467), are interpreted as meaning that the law does not take cognizance of this concubinage to condemn and punish it.*

* See note on p. 251.

This pamphlet deserves no further notice than to say that it is an effort to prove that Swedenborg teaches nothing more than what the whole world knows, and the law recognizes, namely, that there are degrees of evil. Had Swedenborg written nothing at all on the subject, the world, according to this author, would have been as wise.

It might be added, however, that the last sentence in TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, No. 313: All these are meant by this commandment in the natural sense manifestly means so more than its plain import, namely, that all the teachings in the various chapters referred to are involved in the natural sense, i. e., are necessary to a particular understanding of this commandment; in the natural sense--to a particular understanding of what does and of what does not constitute a breach of it. Swedenborg refers his readers to his work on CONJUGIAL LOVE to learn further particulars to the natural sense of this commandment. The statement that all that is said or described in the chapters referred to is against this commandment in the natural sense is too absurd to need argument. It would imply, for instance, that the teachings regarding the opposition of conjugial love and scortatory love, and those concerning the imputation of both loves, describe only breaches of this commandment, whereas in reality their purpose is to enlighten men as to the genuine meaning of the commandment in the natural sense.

The Rev. J. E. Smiths Views.

The third pamphlet is n VINDICATION OF ... SWEDENBORG FROM THE CHARGE OF TEACHING WHAT IS IMMORAL OR AGAINST public policy, By the Rev. J. E. Smith. This was published about the end of March, 1909, but its circulation was not encouraged by the leaders of the General Convention Writing concerning. this pamphlet to Mr. Alden on April 8, 1909, Mr. Worcester says, It is not complete and might not have general endorsement.

This pamphlet is utterly at variance with its predecessors. The latter proceed on the assumption that the fornication and concubinage specifically in question are merely permissions to evil men to lift them from their evils; but Mr. Smith treats them as conditions which are necessities, and which therefore do not destroy the conjugial; and this position leads the author to indite some paragraphs which more or less faithfully reflect the teaching of Swedenborg.

But his pamphlet also shows abundant signs of the influence of the Conventions interpretation, which is a very different thing. Indeed, the pamphlet so bristles with contradictions that it is difficult to review.

Mr. Smith begins by mistranslating scortatorius (scortatory) as adulterous. Then, quoting from the Writings that fornication and concubinage are adultery (the Latin is scortatio--scortation), he easily passes into the definition of fornication and concubinage as adulterous lusts. Then defining adulterous lusts as the love of adultery, he quotes CONJUGIAL LOVE, NO. 423, to show that adulterous [scortatory] love is opposite to conjugial love, and destroys it. He does not note, however, that this very passage distinctly states that by scortatory love is not meant the fornication and concubinage in question; still less does he distinguish between the lust of fornication arising from the flesh, which may or may not be resisted, and scortatory love which is the lust of the flesh entered into and confirmed by the spirit.

The pamphlet then notes that the teaching, with some, love of sex cannot be totally restrained, points out a well-known condition; but, it adds, it is a condition owing solely to the neglect of instruction by parents or others.

The author admits that there are men who cannot moderate their lusts, but describes such a man as an unfortunate and irresponsible creature, not yet a rational man, and this, owing to the fault of others. Yet, later on, he predicates of this irresponsible and irrational creature both conscience and reason, and despite the conclusion from the syllogism set up at the beginning of his paper, namely, that fornication and concubinage are adulterous love, he concedes that in a man who is in these evils [i. e., in this love] the conjugial may be preserved. Thus we read:

The conjugial principle within the man may be preserved despite the concubinage under the circumstances; and these circumstances include compulsion and legal, moral and CONSCIENTIOUS* excuse, ... these are to him the means not only of RATIONAL excuse, but of compulsion.

* The capitals here and also below are ours.

Again, he says, and this fairly presents the teaching of the Writings:

The conjugial principle may be preserved not by it [concubinage apart from the wife], but despite it, if the man is compelled by these causes. It is NOT PERMISSION, bat a necessity in which he justified himself. It is not a license ... but conditions excusatory in the man, by which his CONSCIENCE is not hurt, because he does not willfully abuse the marriage love.

In a word, Mr. Smith, in one and the same paper, says: 1. Fornication and concubinage are adulterous love. 2. There are men in adulterous love because they are irresponsible and irrational. 3. Yet if they are in adulterous love from conscience and rational excuse, the conjugial principle may be preserved with them.

The pamphlet concludes with a review of Bishop Pendletons Declaration This review is accompanied with a gross slander against the members of the Academy.

Marriage and Its Perversions.

The fourth and last pamphlet was more or less of an official nature, being the production of the General Council of the General Convention, and subsequently issued practically under the auspices of the Convention. (See pp. 448-9).

This pamphlet entitled, MARRIAGE AND ITS PERVERSIONS, originally consisted of five parts, the last of which, containing an attack on the Academy, has already been noticed (p. 356).

The consideration of the particular doctrine under discussion is contained in the Fourth Part, which begins by stating the objects of the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE as showing: 1. BY contrast, the nature of true marriage; 2. Revealing the Lords mercy toward those in evil, and indicating, even for the most degraded, the possibility of repentance and salvation;

and 3. To lead to a spirit of Christian mercy and helpfulness toward those outwardly in evil.

The opposition of scortatory love and marriage love is then taken up. Commenting on CONJUGIAL LOVE, NO. 423, which declares that the fornicatory love that precedes marriage, and the concubinage which is entered upon for legitimate, just and weighty reasons are not meant by scortatory love, the pamphlet states:

The evils which are here at first omitted from consideration are presently considered in their place and are abundantly shown to be unchaste, natural, and evil, and are elsewhere classed as scortations ... (SCORTATORY LOVE, 530).

The implication is, of course, that, being classed as scortations (a fact which no one would deny), they therefore in reality are meant by scortatory love.

Taking up then the degrees of evil, the pamphlet quotes SCORTATORY LOVE, NO. 452, ending with the teaching that so far as a man who is in the unchaste state of fornication prefers the chaste state of conjugial love,

he is really in it as to his understanding; and so far as he not only prefers it, but also loves it more, to that degree he is in it also as to his will, thus as to his internal man. And then the fornication if, nevertheless, he continues in it, is to him a necessity for reasons to him convincing. [The italics are ours.]

No conclusion is drawn from this passage, but it is at once followed by the observation that

the recognition of these degrees of evil is essential to our understanding of the Lords providence toward evil, and His effort to lead out those who are in evil a step at a time, if it cannot be done completely and at once.

This is confirmed by quotations from DIVINE PROVIDENCE showing how man pants for the lowest hell, and is being continually withdrawn by the Lord, and the pamphlet continues:

Sexual evils are permitted, but as all evils are suffered by the Lord to exist, to withhold man or to withdraw him from worse evil, without absolutely destroying the freedom which is essential to his humanity.

The pamphlet then discusses the chapter on Fornication. SCORTATORY LOVE, No. 450, is referred to, but not quoted. Instead, it is misrepresented, and in this way appears to support the conclusion drawn from it later on. The pamphlet says:

Conditions are recited by which marriage may of necessity be long delayed, and it is said that under such conditions, with some men the love of the sex cannot without harm be totally withheld from going forth in fornication (N. 450).

In the passage itself Swedenborg does not say what he is here, by clear implication, made to say, namely, that inability to restrain is due solely to conditions by which marriage may be long delayed. What he actually says is:

WITH SOME LOVE OF THE SEX CANNOT, WITHOUT INJURY, BE TOTALLY RESTRAINED FROM GOING FORTH INTO FORNICATION. It is vain to recount the injuries which may be caused and brought about by too great a coercion of the love of the sex with those who, from superabundance, labor with heat. With such men they are the origins of certain diseases of the body and distempers of the mind.... 

It is different with those who have so sparse a love of the sex that they can resist the promptings of its lust (libido); likewise with those who have the freedom of introducing themselves into a legitimate partnership of the bed in the age of young manhood.

A full quotation of the passage would have shown the weakness of the conclusion which the pamphlet proceeds to draw:

The statement quoted in regard to the inability of some to exercise self-control (450), and the similar statement in 459, that few can reserve the manly power for a wife, are directly connected with a recital of conditions existing in Sweden and other countries in Swedenborgs day, where government regulations made marriage for many impossible until the entire period of early manhood was passed.

What was a commonly accepted fact under unnatural conditions then existing, we are at liberty to believe is not a fact even among merely worldly men, under normal and wholesome conditions.*

* In this explanation the pamphlet contradicts the explanation given by Mr. Worcester in his tract on MARRIAGE, where he says, We do not believe that Swedenborgs treatment of this evil is out of date, intended only for Sweden, etc. (see p. 421). It may be noted that when the pamphlet was issued in second edition under the title A DECLARATION, etc., the last sentence quoted in the above text was altered to read, No doubt the danger is greatly lessened under normal and wholesome conditions.

But, what is more important, contrast the inability here mentioned with the ability which every man has from the Lord to keep the commandments and to resist the evil of impurity in act and thought and feeling.... There is no inability with one who acknowledges the Lord and keeps the commandments in His strength... It is only necessary that the evil shall be recognized as evil and shall be shunned as sin.

The implication, of course, is that Swedenborg was wrong when he said that with some, love of the sex cannot without injury be totally restrained (450), and that, with such men, the conjugial may be preserved if the love of the sex be restricted to one mistress (459). For if the pamphlets statement is true, Swedenborg would never have said the conjugial may be preserved if love of the sex be restricted to one mistress; but, instead, would have said, if the man acknowledges the Lord and shuns all fornication as sin.

Proceeding to the subject of intermediates, SCORTATORY LOVE, Nos. 455 and 436 is cited as treating of the lust for fornication as intermediate between the sphere of scortatory love and the sphere of marriage love.

The intermediate things in this state are not indifferent things, things neither good nor evil, but are good things and evil things not yet chosen and confirmed. Fornication in this state is an evil, but not a confirmed evil.

It may be noted that the passage cited (C. L. 455), does not speak of good and evil things, but of the lust of fornication as being in this state intermediate.

Such fornication is then identified with the fornication springing from a certain instinct; towards marriage, spoken of in APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED, No. 1010, where it is taught that this fornication does not destroy the marriage principle [i. e., the conjugial] and does not extinguish the love of marriage.

The ADVERSARIA is also quoted to show that

natural lust itself is not sin, for what enters from the world through the senses, from the blood into the natural mind, from the order and state of ones life, from the instigation of the devil, cannot be sin; but when it passes into consent, that is, into the will, and thus goes forth, it is sin, and oven if it does not go forth (1 ADV. 618, 621).

While one is in that [intermediate] state (the pamphlet continues) he is able to turn to marriage love or adultery.... To think them allowable is to take them out of the intermediate state and confirm them; to condemn them as evils and shun them ... is to conquer them and be delivered from them.

The subject of concubinage is then taken up. The teaching is noted that concubinage from legitimate, just and truly weighty causes is not damnable and not unlawful (463, 467), and that those in it may be at the same time in marriage love (475).

Without essaying any explanation of this last teaching, the pamphlet defines the expression not damnable as being but another way of saying that some sins can be forgiven by the Lord, who knows all circumstances and the motives of all hearts.

The phrase, non sit illictus, which the pamphlet prefers to translate not unpermissible, is explained as referring not

to civil law and its obligations, but to the government of the Lords Providence which continually permits evil that it may withdraw man from it.... In this permission there is no sanction. The Lord suffers an evil to exist when it cannot be prevented without greater harm. The teaching that there are degrees of evil in concubinage is subordinate to the general truth that all concubinage is evil.

Having thus as noted the teaching that those in this concubinage may be at the same time in marriage love and that it is not unpermissible, the pamphlet, entirely regardless both of the teaching it has quoted and of any discrimination between loves and acts, sums up that such concubinage, i. e., concubinage from legitimate, just and truly weighty causes,

is among the loves outside of marriage,... which angels shun as ruin of the soul and the lakes of hell.... Even in its mildest form it is among the unclean and lascivious things which the Divine Commandment forbids us to do, or to desire, or to think allowable.

After this indiscriminating characterization, the pamphlet, later on, says:

The courage which is not content to dismiss the subject of sexual evils merely with a sweeping condemnation, but gives them a calm and discriminating study in the effort to help in their removal, is fully supported by the enlightened judgment of our day.... To recognize degrees of evil is not immoral, when they are all condemned as evil. Even if one should differ from Swedenborg in his classification of evils, he must acknowledge a teaching to be moral which holds constantly that they are all evils, and to be shunned as sins.

In the re-publication of this pamphlet, practically under the auspices of the General Convention, the only essential change was the introduction of a paragraph dealing with the statement that the work CONJUGIAL LOVE does not treat of theology, but chiefly of morals. After defining theology as dealing with belief in God and with a life of shunning evil and doing good from Him, the pamphlet continues:

The book on Marriage Love and Scortatory Love bears out the description that it does not treat of theology but chiefly of morals, in that it in small part deals directly with the nature of God and the spiritual life of repentance and faith, which are so fully treated of in THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, THE DOCTRINE OF LIFE and THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD, ...and deals largely with moral aspects of the relation of the sexes. Christians and regenerating men will find the help they need in applying the commandments to their lives in the books that treat more fully of the Lord and of shunning evil... Many things in the book ... are said of those who are without real religion or theology.

It is plain that when the book discusses conditions and evils which arise through an absence of religion, it is a book of information in regard to things existing in the world and in hell, but is in no sense a rule of conduct for the Church.

It may be added that in this pamphlet the Convention has officially inaugurated the practice of calling the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE a work on Scortatory Love,--a practice which, indulged in by a professed enemy of the Church, was criticized by the Rev. Samuel Worcester years ago. (See p. 6.)

The whole core and essence of the position set forth in the pamphlet is contained in the statement that the teachings concerning fornication and concubinage describe nothing more than permissions given or allowed to wicked men lest they increase their wickedness by worse evilspermissions to men who, if they would only look to the Lord and shun evils as sins, would have no need of such permissions; permissions that are given because they will not do this.

No essential distinction is drawn between fornication and concubinage on the one hand, and adultery on the other. For of the latter also it, may be said that the milder forms are permitted lest men come into the more grievous, and that these in their turn are permitted lest man fall into the still more grievous lusts described at the end of CONJUGIAL LOVE. Fornication and concubinage and adultery are treated without discrimination as being all evils of the will, that is, of the internal man, with distinctions only as to degree of guilt; and what Swedenborg says as to the intermediary character of the two former is made absolutely meaningless.

No wonder that, throughout the pamphlet no attention is paid to the teaching that with those in concubinage conjugial love may be preserved with those who prefer marriage to concubinage (CONJUGIAL LOVE, No. 475); or to the words we italicized in our quotation above, that so far as one in fornication loves the chaste state more, to that degree he is in it also as to his will, thus as to his internal man (452).

Such language cannot possibly be used of those who are in evils as to the will, that is, of those who might, but will not, look to the Lord and shun evils as sins.

Such treatment of the subject explains away and makes of non-effect the Second Part; it essentially repudiates the whole of the work as a part of Divine Revelation. The effect of the appeal to Swedenborgs description of CONJUGIAL LOVE as treating chiefly of morals is not to uphold the work, but to discredit it--not to show that it is a Divinely moral work, but to show that, in large part, it is in no sense a rule of conduct for the Church.

The words of the Rev. J. F. Buss, describing a similar appeal made in England, are as true today as when they were written:

What is now being attempted (he says) is the dethronement of a work which has always been esteemed by New Churchmen as one of the most precious of the glorious doctrinal possessions of the Church from the royal rank of one of the Writings of the Church to the position of a merely human treatise on worldly morals.*

* The Canonicity of CONJUGIAL LOVE, printed in THE STAR OF THE EAST AND OTHER STUDIES, by James F. Buss (Spiers, London, 1909, p. l54). The whole of this study is worthy of careful perusal as a complete refutation of arguments decrying the authority of CONJUGIAL LOVE.

And--we might add--a treatise, apparently considered so doubtful in its moral effects on the general reader, that its sale and circulation must be restricted to experts in the social evil. (See p. 440.)

4.

UNFOUNDED CHARGES.

The following brief account of a correspondence with Mr. Worcester is here added as a specimen of the loose manner in which charges without justice or foundation are brought against the Academy.

In every case where accusations have been made and surreptitiously circulated against the Academy, and where there has been a chance for investigation, the investigation has resulted in proving the absolute falsity of the charges. But the slanders continue, and it would seem that in the General Convention they are received with a ready ear, for there are few who seem to be minded to ask for proof before believing the worst; things of their fellow New Churchmen. (See pp. 10-11.)

Writing to Mr. Worcester on April 7, 1909, Mr. Alden referred to an old letter by the former gentleman, in which it was said that it was an historical fact, the proof of which is in hand that the positions of the Academy on the subject of conjugial love were reached at a meeting by vote. There were others at the time who did not agree. Mr. Alden asked for the proof of this statement. Answering, on April 8, Mr. Worcester expressed dislike to diverting attention to side issues and non-essential things. On the following day Mr. Alden wrote that he did not regard fair play as a side issue or non-essential, and repeated his request. On April 10 Mr. Worcester, not liking the tone of Mr. Aldens letter, addressed himself to Bishop Pendleton, stating that, since importance was attached to the matter, he would endeavor to secure the letter which furnished the required proof. Bishop Pendleton answered, on April 22, that Mr. Worcesters old letter indicated that

you regarded the meeting in question as important, since in your mind such important consequences grew out of it; and it is also evident that you saw in this meeting something discreditable to us, deserving of accusation and reproach. In your recent letter to me it appears that you do not now regard the letter as important.

The Bishop was in agreement with the former position. He therefore repeated the request for proof, to be deposited in the Academy archives.

Mr. Worcester answered on April 29, that the old letter referred to is not accessible, unless some very strong necessity compels it for the benefit of the Church; but he gave the assurance that he was not making use of anything learned from it.

In his answer of May 1, Bishop Pendleton regretted that his correspondent was unable or unwilling to undertake the labor necessary to obtaining the letter. He again noted that the entire tone of Mr. Worcesters letter indicated that there is something incriminating in the letter. He was well acquainted with the history of the Academy, but as no opportunity was afforded him to correct any misinformation or perversion of facts, he requested some information about the letter from Mr. Worcesters own recollection of it. Referring to that gentlemans repeated statements that he had divulged the contents of the letter to none but Mr. Alden, Mr. Pendleton notes that this is a confirmation that you wish me to believe that there is something in the letter that reflects on us, and he adds that he has no concern as to its being revealed to others.

There is nothing that the Academy or its leading men have done or written,... no comment or letter or anything friendly or unfriendly, that we are not willing the whole world should know.

He invited Mr. Worcester or anyone to make public whatever you may have in your possession.

It is not about this we are concerned. But it is the assertions, hints or intimations of the existence of such documents or letters, and not at the same time showing them, thus allowing them to speak for themselves, that has aroused our indignation; all of which gives ground for the suspicion that the main purpose in keeping such documents concealed is to more effectually do injury to us and to our work. For any sensible man knows that there is more power for harm in a letter locked up in a safe for thirty pears with occasional dark hints as to the iniquity of its contents, than in the open publication of the same.

The letter concluded with an invitation to Mr. Worcester or any other honorable New Churchman to examine all the records in the possession of the Academy.

Mr. Worcester replied on May 3, stating it is impossible for me to produce the paper, and the one in whose keeping it is, is unwilling to produce it. Under the circumstances he desired therefore to withdraw the statement for which proof was asked. He added that if he ever saw the letter he would write should it not bear out his original statement

This ended the correspondence

5.

THE ENGARD CASE.

The effect of the Decision of Judge Smith was quickly brought home to those who had charged before the Court that the teachings of the Academy, and, if not of the Academy, then of Swedenborg, were immoral (p. 415).

The Book Association of the Philadelphia (Chestnut Street) Society, and the Society itself, of which Mr. Worcester is the pastor, had been each left a share in a legacy of ten thousand dollars bequeathed by the will of the late Miss L. A. Engard. In view of the decision in the Kramph Case, this legacy was contested by the heirs on the ground that the beneficiaries were not proper subjects of a charitable bequest by reason of their teachings being immoral and contrary to the public policy of the State. The case was heard in the Philadelphia Orphans Court on March 2, 1909.

It is not our purpose to go into this case except so far as is necessary to show the attitude of the New Churchmen concerned toward the work on CONJUGIAL LOVE.

The whole contention of counsel for the heirs was that Swedenborgs teachings were immoral, and that these teachings were the sole standard and expression of New Church doctrine, there being, in the New Jerusalem Church, no central council or body with the authority to lay down the doctrines of the Church, and every man being left free to interpret them for himself

Mr. Worcester was the principal witness.

Asked whether his Society taught the Work on CONJUGIAL LOVE, he answered:

A. This book, as you may know, is in two parts, the First Part setting forth the principles of true marriage. Those principles we teach. The Second Part is a discussion of the social evil. That we do not teach, as having no application to Christian people.

The questions then turned to what was essential to being a New Churchman.

Q. A New Churchman is one who believes in the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg?

A. That would not define it.

Q. Please define it.

A. To believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only God of Heaven and Earth, and in obedience to His commandments as the law of life, and to be received on that basis makes one a New Churchman.

Q. Is it not essential that one accept the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg in addition to what you have recited?

A. It would not be.

Counsel then asked whether it was not a fact that every believer in the doctrines of Swedenborg had the right of self-determination.

A. I would say yes, but I would like to add a sentence. We are not bound by the stereotyped prescriptions, but by the great consensus of opinion in the Church as to interpretation.

Q. So that while your Church may not teach and preach the second half of this book CONJUGIAL LOVE, is it not the fact that the acceptance of the doctrines contained in that second half would not oust a member from his faith or from membership in your Church?

A. If one undertook to think that those things applied to himself, I think it would oust him.

Q. Is it not a fact that,... every New Churchman, whether a member of your Church or not, has the, unequivocal right to self-interpret and self-determine the meaning of all the Doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg?

A. I think not.

Explaining further, the witness stated that there were promulgations, expressing the great consensus of opinion on certain doctrines.

Q. Are those pronunciations bringing upon those members who do not accept the same, even though members of your Church?

A. They are binding in the sense that the great consensus of opinion is binding. They are not hard and fast laws.

Q. So that if a minority rejects the interpretation placed upon them by the Church they are at liberty to do so without doing evil?

A. They can have their own opinions. It is a question whether they could remain in the Church.

Q. Has not every New Churchman an inherent and absolute right in himself to interpret and self-determine the doctrines primarily of Emanuel Swedenborg?

A. No.

Q. Explain that further.

A. Why, any man can interpret things to suit himself, but he cannot remain a member of the New Church under any and every interpretation.

Counsel then cited Mr. Worcesters testimony in the Kramph Case to the effect that no declaration by any body of the Church is binding upon any of the members. (See p. 203.) The witness answered:

A. I may have answered so, but in the sense that I now explain,--binding as the great consensus of opinion is binding.

Q. Doctor, would the acceptance of the doctrines of concubinage and fornication, as stated in Emanuel Swedenborgs book CONJUGIAL LOVE, disqualify a Churchman from membership in your Church?

A. The acceptance of those things, as applicable to himself as a Christian man would.

Q. As applied to others?

A. If you go into the depths of the social evil, you would find the meaning of those things.

Q. Now you qualify your answer, by making it, so far as it applied to himself. I ask, whether, if a man, a member of the Church, of your Church, in his own interpretation of the doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg, self-determines that those doctrines of Emanuel Swedenborg with regard to fornication and concubinage are true, would such an acceptance of such a New Churchman, disqualify him from membership in your Church?

A. Acceptance of those things as true for Christian people would.

Q. Well, why do you say, acceptance for Christian people would? Why qualify it?

A. Because the things that are discussed, do not apply to Christian people who have that light and strength.

There is a discussion of things in the depths of evil. A step half may out of evil of such a person might be better than to remain where he was.

After further examination along this line the witness stated that a man in fornication or in concubinage apart from the wife, whatsoever the conditions and circumstances, would be decidedly disqualified for membership in the Church. Then, after testifying that, under no circumstances was fornication permissible, he was asked:

Q. If what you say is so, that you do not teach the doctrines of conjugial love as expounded by Swedenborg, will you please explain why in your charter, there is no exception of that book?

A. We hold the book to be true and correct for what it is,--a discussion of evils if you please, an aid to the expert in dealing with the social evil, but by no means as a book of conduct for the Church or for Christian people.

Q. Is that book not recognized as one of the theological writings of Swedenborg?

A. It is, in a broad classification, as against the scientific books.

Q. And recognized by Swedenborg himself, in discussing the Sixth Commandment in THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION?

A. He refers to it.

Q. He refers to this very treatise as one of his theological writings.

A. He does not so call it.

Counsel then read from TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, No. 313, and asked:

Q. Now CONJUGIAL LOVE, according to the TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, is recognized by Swedenborg himself as one of his theological writings, as expressly referred to?

A. I so class it; he does expressly refer to it.

Asked as to whether the Church had repudiated CONJUGIAL LOVE, the witness answered:

A. I say, we do not regard that treatise upon evil as in any sense applicable to Christian people. It is a study of evil conditions.

Q. Doctor, is there not a governing or interpreting body in the New Church to determine what doctrine, what interpretation should or should not be placed upon the writings of Swedenborg?

A. I would say, the Council of Ministers.

Q. Now has that Council of Ministers the right or authority to define the law of the New Church?

A. In the sense that I have before explained, as expressing the great preponderance of opinion.

Q. Is that binding on the minority?

A. Just in the sense that a preponderating opinion is binding.

Q. Are you unable to make a more categorical answer than that?

A. I would say yes, for I think that such a preponderating opinion is very binding.

Ministers of the Academy were put on the stand to prove that the New Church recognizes no authority for the doctrine of the Church except; the Writings of Swedenborg.

The Rev. Harold Conant, Mr. Worcesters Assistant, and the Agent of the Book Association, was examined, and, after a number of questions, he was asked:

Q. Was that book, CONJUGIAL LOVE, entered on the shelves of your library, for the inspection of the public generally, among your other books?

A. I would not say that.

Q. How is it kept?

A. The book CONJUGIAL LOVE is kept on our shelves.

Q. And free access can be had thereto by members and by the public?

A. No.

Q. By applying to the Librarian?

A. If, in the Librarians judgment, the applicant is competent to inspect the book.

Q. What do you moan by that?

A. I mean the book is a book for experts, and none but experts need consult it.

Q. If I were to go there, would I be permitted to examine it?

A. I am not sure.

Q. In other words, you mean that the reading of the book is restricted?

A. Restricted.

Q. Since when?

A. Always, so far as my time goes; I cannot speak beyond my connection with the Society.

Q. How long have you been there?

A. I came there in the spring of 1906.

Q. Can this book be purchased at your library?

A. No, not for sale.

Q. Do you know whether it could be purchased at the rooms of the First New Jerusalem Society?

A. It could not.

A witness for the heirs then testified that, without the slightest trouble, she had purchased a copy of CONJUGIAL LOVE at the rooms of the First New Jerusalem Society and New Church Book Store, in November, 1908.

----------

Referring to Mr. Conants testimony, Mr. Worcester wrote to Mr. Alden on March 19, explaining that

Last November ... the bookselling was taken over by the Tract Society, the Book Association keeping for the present only the reading room and lending library. This accounted for Mr. Conants saying that the book CONJUGIAL LOVE could not be bought at the rooms of the Church Society or of the Book Association. He should not have said that, without explaining that it could be bought at the same place from the Tract Society. He did not mean to deceive, but his answer was misleading.

As for the book, me have for some time used some discretion about lending this and two or three other books,--among them my fathers PHYSIOLOGICAL CORRESPONDENCES. We feel, in regard to such books, as with many medical books, that they are not to be picked up by every careless person, nor by a child. We have reserved the right to use discretion.

It may be added that on May 5, following the receipt of this letter, Mr. Alden called at the Book Room of the Philadelphia Society, and was informed by the lady in charge that CONJUGIAL LOVE could not be bought either from the Book Association or the Tract Society.

6.

DECLARATIONS.

Concern over the effects of Judge Smiths Decision; a fear that, with public attention thus called to CONJUGIAL LOVE, others might interpret it as teaching immorality; and the legal reason* that the General Convention shall have some official pronouncement to which to point as the Doctrine of the New Church, early led to the voicing of a desire that some authoritative declaration should be prepared by the Church to make clear to the world the true interpretation of Swedenborg's Doctrines.

* See p. 447.

The Messengers Call for a Declaration.

This desire was first publicly voiced by the official organ of the General Convention, two months after the rendering of the first Decision in the Kramph Case, and included an intimation of a future wise and charitable attach on the Academy. In this editorial of September 30, 1906, the MESSENGER, after stating the Decision, continues:

If the judge had decided that the Academys teachings were contrary to law and immoral, and that a body so teaching was to be considered an outlaw as to legacies, the great body of the Church throughout the world would have been in hearty approval. The gravest error in the judges opinion is in implying that the teachings of the Academy are the teachings of Swedenborg, thus ignoring the well-known fact that the Convention has always taught the contrary.*

* As a matter of fact, the Decision was specifically against the Writings of Swedenborg (see pp. 238, 240, 290, 299, 304).

The Academys testimony, added to the well known demoralizing effects of its teaching in bringing opprobrium upon the Church, has caused many to feel that the time is at hand when the Church should effectively deal with the subject and that further delay is unwise.

We have received several communications containing facts that should be made public and eventually must be, but we have withheld them because the subject is of more vital purport and broader concern than the MESSENGER of anyone less than the Convention can properly dispose of. The MESSENGER may best serve the Church by postponing for the present further reference to the subject after suggesting to Convention the advisability of formulating a course of proceeding whereby the subject may be disposed of a way that is wise, charitable, salutary, and final, and that in the future will protect the Church from reproach.

These last words convey the gist of the reason for action by the Convention--to protect the Church [i. e., the Convention] from reproach.

For the purpose of preparing something for the action of Convention, the General Council of that body, at a meeting in the following December, appointed a committee of six--three laymen and three ministers--to draw up a statement of the Doctrines of the Second Part of CONJUGIAL LOVE. The names of the members of the committee were, the Rev. Messrs. Seward, Worcester and Ager, and Messrs. Wm. McGeorge, Job Barnard and Warren Goddard.

The leaders of the Convention had already determined on the course of action and as early as the close of December the action of the General Convention of the following June, in adopting its Declaration, was, in effect, prophesied by Mr. McGeorge. I will tell you right now (he said, in his argument before Judge Smith) that this case, coming into this Court, and producing as it did upon your mind the question that it did, has roused the whole Church, and in the future there will be no mistake where New Church stands on this doctrine (p. 288).

In the meantime, Mr. Worcester wrote to the MESSENGER of March 10, 1909:

Experience seems to prove that many persons and even Courts of law may not be able to understand the true message of the doctrine. He therefore suggested that it was necessary that Convention and perhaps every Society should adopt a statement

of our position upon marriage and purity which the public and every Court must understand. The purpose would be ... to show the world in letters which it can read, what the Church stands for on these vital subjects.

Declaration by Pennsylvania Association.

The Pennsylvania Association was the first body to adopt this suggestion that Swedenborg must be supplemented by the decree of a Council, lest he be understood as teaching something against marriage and purity. At its annual meeting in Philadelphia, on April 9, one month after the Engard trial with its newspaper notoriety, the Association adopted the following Preamble and Resolution:

Whereas, certain testamentary gifts to New Church organizations have been attacked in the Courts of Pennsylvania upon the ground that the Writings of Swedenborg, as contained in the Second Part of the book CONJUGIAL LOVE are immoral and in violation of the Commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and are against the law of the land;

And, whereas, by reason of the above charge, and the circumstances arising therefrom, this Association considers it highly desirable at the time formally to set forth the position which it has always held;

Now, therefore, it is hereby resolved as the sense of the Pennsylvania Association of the New Church that our position as New Churchmen is that we stand on the Divine Commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and that all sexual intercourse with any other than one lawful husband or wife is a violation of the commandment and a sin against God; that the true interpretation of the Writings of Swedenborg is in strict accord with the above position, and that we repudiate and condemn as false and pernicious every interpretation of any of Swedenborgs Writings which asserts or, admits that under any circumstances sexual intercourse with anyone other than ones own lawful husband or wife is anything but evil, and to be condemned and shunned as sin.*

* A similar Declaration was adopted by the Massachusetts Association shortly prior to the meeting of the General Convention.

With this solemn DECLARATION by the Pennsylvania Association that it did not believe in adultery, the Church rested content until the meeting of the General Convention in Brockton, Mass., in the following June.

The Convention in Brockton.

In the meantime the Committee of the General Council had completed its work, and its report, MARRIAGE AND ITS PERVERSIONS, had been printed in May, in time for presentation to the Supreme Court, as already noticed. This report was now to be presented to the ministers for discussion--but not to Convention. For to quote from the NEW CHURCH REVIEW for October, 1909:

The Brockton Society believed it would be a great injury to the Church in that locality to have the subject [of the Kramph Case] considered there, and asked permission to withdraw its invitation if it was likely to come up in Convention meetings.

Upon the assurance that it should not be discussed in any public session the invitation was not withdrawn. No graver mistake could have been made by those who gave this assurance, for it was practically tying the hands of the Convention in its most important matter of business.

The General Council found itself forced into a position where it must act for Convention while Convention was itself in session, and secure the consent of the superior body while cutting off debate,--a most unsatisfactory kind of procedure. Some felt that they were deprived of freedom unjustly by the situation, and many who were in full accord with the intent of the declaration for which they were asked to vote, felt that they did so under constraint.

The doctrinal pamphlet prepared by the General Council was brought before the Council of Ministers for consideration. The meetings of the Council were private, but this much is known, that there was considerable divergence of opinion both as to the doctrinal part of the pamphlet and as to its attack on the Academy. Finally, the Council of Ministers adopted the following Declaration:

WHEREAS, questions have arisen with respect to the teaching of the New Church as contained in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg regarding marriage and its violation, the Council of Ministers of the General Convention ... hereby declares that the only rule of conduct which that teaching makes morally allowable is strict obedience to the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, in its letter and in its spirit; and that all forms of sexual intercourse outside of the marriage relation are forbidden thereby; and that we deny and repudiate any and all interpretations of Swedenborgs Writings on the subject which are contrary thereto.

This Declaration, to again quote the REVIEW, was believed to meet the requirements of the General Council in reporting to Convention. But it was doomed not to appear before the general body.

It will be noticed that the Declaration adopted by the Council follows along the line of that made by the Pennsylvania Association. In the latter body an unsuccessful effort had been made by Mr. McGeorge to substitute a declaration which should specifically condemn the Academy.

An similar effort was now made in Brockton, and it met with more success. Instead of adopting the Declaration prepared by the Council of Ministers, which has charge of all matters pertaining to the ministry and doctrine. (NEW CHURCH REVIEW, October, 1909), the General Council, which has superintendence of the business of the Convention (Ibid.), presented to the Convention another and longer Declaration which had been prepared by its sub-committee, the first paragraph being taken bodily from the pamphlet, MARRIAGE AND ITS PERVERSIONS The Declaration itself follows:

Declaration by the General Convention.

The necessity has arisen for the New Church to make clear its stand for the sanctity of marriage and purity of life, at this time, because of the teaching put forth in the name of the New Church by the body commonly known as the Academy, with headquarters at Bryn Athyn, Pa., that under certain conditions sexual relations outside of marriage are not evil nor a violation of the commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery. The body holding these views has organized under the name, The General Church of the New Jerusalem, which so resembles the name, The General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the United States of America that the unadvised may mistake one for the other. They have also insisted before the public and in a court of law, and in their periodical and other writings, that their teaching is the teaching of Swedenborg, and is the doctrine of the New Church.

The General Convention of the New Jerusalem in the United States of America, assembled in its eighty-ninth annual session, being its first session since the hearing in the court of law above referred to, hereby denies and repudiates this teaching, and affirms that the writings of Swedenborg condemn as evil all sexual relations outside of marriage, as well as all conduct, thought or intention that does not accord therewith in letter and in spirit;

and, further, that the only law of purity for men is that declared by our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew v. 28: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The revelations made by the Lord through the instrumentality of Emanuel Swedenborg, for the establishment of the New Church spoken of in Revelation xxi. 2, contain many new and wonderful statements regarding the Divine origin, the holiness, the purity, and the spiritual use of marriage. They teach that marriage is the highest, the holiest, the most intimate, and the most enduring relation into which finite beings can enter; that it derives its origin from the Lord, not; only because He instituted it in the beginning, but because it is from Him, being derived from the union or marriage of love and wisdom in Him; and that it also represents the union of the Lord and the church, the Lord being called in Scripture the husband, and the church the bride or wife. The sacred use of marriage is also shown not only in the continuance and increase of the human race, but also in the salvation of human souls and the perfecting of character; for the true husband no longer loves himself for his own sake, but for the sake of his wife; and the wife no longer loves her womanly qualities and abilities for her own sake, but for the sake of her husband, the power of self-love being thereby broken, so that a pure and unselfish love can take its place.

This Declaration was laid before the Convention toward the close of its meeting, with the request, by Mr. Worcester, that the Convention express its vote without discussion. It was explained by the Chair that the General Council thought it wise and necessary that some declaration be made by the General Convention itself, and this for legal reasons.

Mr. Schreck protested against adopting this important matter ... without consideration. But the protest was quickly voted down, and the DECLARATION adopted by an overwhelming majority.

Reason for the Declaration.

Immediately after the meeting of the Convention, the General Council published this DECLARATION, taking advantage of the publication to include also the Report of its own sub-committee, previously printed under the title, MARRIAGE AND ITS PERVERSIONS, and discussed but not adopted by the Council of Ministers.

The publication was entitled, A DECLARATION BY THE GENERAL CONVENTION.... The reason for the Declaration. A Statement of the Doctrine of Swedenborg and the New Church [italics ours] concerning Marriage and the Sins Against Marriage, the whole making a pamphlet of 69 pages.

Under the title, THE REASON FOR THE DECLARATION, the Council printed a very much tempered and considerably abridged version of Part V of MARRIAGE AND ITS PERVERSIONS, which has been already noticed (p. 357). For the teaching of the Academy that under certain conditions sexual relations outside of marriage are not evil nor a violation of the commandment, this Part refers the reader to LAWS OF ORDER. It quotes from Bishop Pendletons Introduction to this work that there are means of preservation that are ... intermediate (see p. 451). It then notes that the author of LAWS OF ORDER, representing the position of the Academy, does acknowledge that in themselves non-conjugial relations are evil (p. 153). Thus the REASON FOR THE DECLARATION flatly contradicts the DECLARATION, which declares the Academy to hold that under certain conditions, such relations are not evil. The writer of the REASON, however, adds that, while the Convention holds that all sexual relations outside of marriage are forbidden by the Divine commandment, the Academy holds that under some circumstances they are not so forbidden.

The REASON then prints the summary which forms the Second Part of the DECLARATION BY THE GENERAL CHURCH, and continues that the falsity of this Declaration is that it exalts methods of the Lords government of the evil as laws of spiritual life. The REASON concludes by referring to the Kramph Case as showing the necessity for the General Convention to make clear its stand ... and to disclaim the Academy teaching, and it recommends that the Conventions DECLARATION be adopted also by the several associations and societies of the Church.*

* This recommendation was adopted by some of the Associations of the General Convention, namely, the Michigan, Illinois, and Kansas. In the two former it was opposed by a small minority. It was not brought up in the Maryland Association, whose general pastor, the Rev. Frank Sewall, voted, in the General Convention, to lay it on the table; nor in the Canada Association. An effort was made for its adoption by the Ohio Association, but the executive committee of that body thought it unadvisable to bring the matter before the Association.

The Third Part of the pamphlet was simply a reprint, with slight; changes, of Parts I-IV, of MARRIAGE AND ITS PERVERSIONS, as already noticed. (See p. 426.)

It may be added that an editorial review of this pamphlet in the MESSENGER of August 18 was made the occasion of an infamous attack on the Academy--an attack that merits no other notice than the above characterization.

7.

FALSE WITNESS.

The DECLARATION itself was noticed in the NEW CHURCH LIFE for August, 1909, in an editorial, whose title, Thou shalt not bear False Witness, sufficiently indicates its nature. This editorial was translated into German and printed in NEUKIRCHENBLATT, the editor of that journal, the late Rev. L. H. Tafel, adding, We have reproduced the [Academys] answer ... because we regard the answer as entirely justified.

All who are acquainted with the Academy and its blameless life, know also that it exalts conjugial love in its purity and the love of offspring, with more to the same effect. (See NEW CHURCH LIFE, October, 1909, p. 596.)

The LIFE took no further notice of the Declaration than to characterize the charge that the Academy teaches that certain sexual relations outside of marriage are not evil, and the implication that the Academy does not uphold the sanctity of marriage as false witness. It seems well, however, and especially in view of the persistent promulgation of the Declaration by the Convention and its Associations, that something further shall be said.

There is not a single written, spoken or published statement; by the Academy which justifies the false charges which have been made against it, and the cruel slanders which they convey. Certain statements in NEW CHURCH LIFE have been used to support the charges. These statements have already been noticed on a preceding page (see p. 20, seq.), and to what was there said nothing need be added.

For the thirty years and more since the establishment of the Academy, its membersmen and women whose sole end has been to learn the teachings of the Writings of the Churchhave been persistently attacked by the venom of secret slander, slander which has been received with open ears and which, so long spread in secret, has at last led the General Convention to the public utterance of a lie.

The life of the Academy has been open; its teachings have been candid and fearless presentations of what it holds to be the teachings of Divine Revelation; they have been set forth in public print, and have been and are always open to any discussion that is based on the Writings of the New Church. To use the words of Mr. Benade: It holds no private opinions with respect to the things of the Church. Its opinions are the teachings of the Heavenly Doctrine (see p. 96).

Yet such has been the attitude to the Academy that rational discussion of its teachings has been the exception; more frequently they have been condemned without discussion, and have been perverted and misrepresented into confirmations of whispered slanders. To remove excuse for the continuation of these misrepresentations, we now propose, in addition to the doctrinal presentation which forms the Sixth Part of the present work, to examine two public utterances by the Academy which have been particularly fastened upon by its opponents.

8.

FORNICATION AN INTERMEDIATE.

The first is contained in Bishop Pendletons Introduction to LAWS OF ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CONJUGIAL. It is there said (p. 19):

There are also means of preservation [of the conjugial] that are neither positive nor negative, but intermediate. We are told that the love of the sex in general is at first an intermediate love, neither good nor evil; but that it becomes good or evil in the degree that it is determined to one of the sex, or becomes roaming lust; further, while it is still in this intermediate state, it may be ultimated and yet remain intermediate, as being neither good nor evil; provided the ultimation be limited to one; and that in such cases the conjugial cannot otherwise be preserved, or would be defiled and jeopardized.

Three statements are here made, which, changing their order, are as follows: 1. That the love of the sex is at first an intermediate love. 2. That while it is still in this state it may be ultimated and yet remain intermediate. 3. That there are means of preservation of the conjugial that are neither positive nor negative, but intermediate. That these statements are nothing but the clear teachings of Divine Revelation is seen from the following passages:

1. That the love of the set is at first an intermediate love.

The love of the sex is like a fountain from which both conjugial love and scortatory love may be derived (C. L. 445).

Love of the sex is not the origin of conjugial love, but is its first, thus like an external natural in which is implanted the internal spiritual (C. L. 98).

From the above teaching that both conjugial love and scortatory love may be derived from the love of the sex, it is clear that love of the sex is intermediate between the two, that is to say, is as a middle station from which the course may be directed to the one or the other. The course itself depends on the nature of what is implanted within this love; and therefore love of the sex is not the origin of conjugial love nor of its opposite, but is only the first of these loves.

2. That while it is still in this state, it may be ultimated and yet remain intermediate.

Conjugial love and scortatory love may be derived through fornication and they may be derived without it, for love of the sex is within every man, and it either puts itself forth or does not put itself forth.... But with what caution and prudence chaste conjugial love may proceed through fornication, and from what imprudence unchaste or scortatory love proceeds through it, will be made clear in what follows (C. L. 445).

Conjugial love begins through love of the sex because before the consort is found the sex generally is loved ... and because determinations to marriage are protracted from various causes, even to the middle period of manhood (prima juventus), and in the meantime the beginning of that love is as lust, which, with some, goes forth into actual love of the sex--; but still the rein is no further loosened with them than is conducive to health (C. L. 98).

The sphere of the lust of fornicating, as it is in the beginning, is mediate between the sphere of scortatory love and the sphere of conjugial love (C. L. 455).

It will be noticed that what is said of the love of the sex, namely, that from it both conjugial love and scortatory love may be derived, is also said of fornication (C. L., No. 445), or, what is the same thing, of the love of the sex going forth into actual love of the sex (C. L., No. 98).

It will also be noticed that the lust (libido not concupiscentia) to which the beginning of the love of the sex is likened (C. L., 98) is the same as the lust (libido) of fornicating, the sphere of which is said to be intermediate (C. L., 455).

The passages, therefore, clearly teach that love of the sex--in the beginning like lust--may go forth into fornication, and yet remain intermediate, that is, that through this love, even when thus ultimated, either scortatory or conjugial love may be derived. Indeed, what in general is said of love of the sex may also be said of fornication which is the actuality of this love. Both are of the natural man not yet purified, and both are therefore unchaste and evil; yet through both two opposite loves may be derived.

3. There are means of preservation of the conjugial that are neither positive nor negative, but intermediate.

The actual love of the sex spoken of in CONJUGIAL LOVE, 98, and the fornication with caution and prudence spoken of in 445, are both given as means through which conjugial love may proceed, i. e., may be given to man by the Lord.

The actual words of the teaching are conjugial love may be derived through (per) fornication. It is not derived from fornication or love of the sex, for then these would be its origin; nor is it derived in spite of fornication; but with some, it may be derived through fornication, that is, through fornication as a means, wherein, as the Writings teach, a refuge is found that a more restricted and tempered state may be induced and whereby the conjugial may be preserved (C. L., 459). The fornication through which conjugial love may be derived must certainly therefore be a means of preservation of the conjugial.

It cannot be a negative means, for it would not be possible for conjugial love to be derived through it, if it were negative to that love. Moreover, the man who in such fornication as is referred to, prefers the conjugial state and loves it more (C. L., 452), and with such a man conjugial love is interiorily stored up in the fornication (C. L., 449).

Nor can it he a positive means of preservation of the conjugial, since, like love of the sex, it is evil, unchaste, and of the natural man not yet purified. It is plainly therefore an intermediate means for the preservation of the conjugial. And, being intermediate, either conjugial love or scortatory love may be derived through it according to the caution and prudence on the one hand, or to the imprudence on the other, of the man who is in it, i. e., according to the will and intention of such man. It is in will and intention that we must seek the positive means for preserving the conjugial or the negative means which destroy it.

These are the teachings of Divine Revelation, and for them we make no apology, nor do we wish to explain them away. It is for the Church to acknowledge them, to understand them and to teach them as they are revealed.

9.

THE DUTY OF NEW CHURCHMEN.

The second statement which we would notice is on page 135 of LAWS OF ORDER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE CONJUGIAL. The passage in question was written in comment on a letter written by the Rev. S. S. Seward in criticism of the term, Laws of Order (see p. 49). Mr. Seward writes:

Let me ask ... if our Old Church friends might not argue that if the permissions described in CONJUGIAL LOVE 444-476 are laws of order for the preservation of the conjugial, it would not be the duty of every man whose circumstances came within the lines laid down in those passages to make use of concubinage in order to preserve the conjugial? Of course, you will not understand me as applying any such reduction to absurdity to your position.

On this the author of LAWS OF ORDER commented:

It is somewhat surprising that the writer of the above should have any doubt as to the position of the General Church on this subject.

It may be shocking to him, but the members of that Church do hold that it is the duty of every man, whose circumstances come within the lines laid down in those passages (C. L. 444-476), to make use of concubinage in order to preserve the conjugial....Why is Divine revelation given if not to be practiced and obeyed? It is the duty of every man to strive by all means and with all his power to preserve within him the conjugial which is the precious pearl of Christian life. And if a man is so situated, by external circumstances over which he has no control, that he cannot preserve the conjugial within him, except by availing himself of the allowances which the Lord holds out to him,--is it not his duty to accept the only means of rescue that exists for him?

The writer adds that experience showed that this passage would be pointed to as throwing open the floodgates of immorality.

Were we to utter in tones of thunder (he continues) the qualifying clause,...Whose circumstances come within the lines laid down in those passages, were we to insert this in letters of fire between every line we write, some ... are sure neither to hear nor see it, but will immediately accuse us of encouraging free love.

His words were prophetic.

It should be noted that the word duty was first introduced by Mr. Seward, to whose position the comment was directed. That position as shown in his letter and also in his work, THE SAVING POWER OF THE LORD, is that it is the duty of every man to shun under every and all circumstances, as sins against God, the limited concubinage and fornication spoken of in the Writings as that within which conjugial love may be stored (C. L., 452, 475), and being not unlawful (C. L., 467). It was against this position that the words it is the duty of man under certain circumstances laid clown in the Writings, to avail himself of the allowances which the Lord holds out to him were written.

These words have been quoted, and more frequently their author has been represented without quotation, as teaching or implying that it is the duty of man to more or less indiscriminately enter into various kinds of extra-conjugial relations. Constructions of the worst and most damning kind have been placed on these words and have been freely circulated.

Yet it must be clear to every fair-minded reader of LAWS OF ORDER that the authors meaning, not only as judged from his whole work, but even merely from the passage we have cited, does not justify them. His meaning, stated with sufficient clearness, is, that when there is such salacity that it cannot he totally restrained, it will either break out into evils which destroy the conjugial, or it may he restrained within certain limits, whereby the conjugial may be preserved; and that, with men laboring under such salacity, it is their duty to do all that they can, that the conjugial may he preserved with them, and thus to enter into that limited fornication or concubinage spoken of in the Writings, rather than to suffer evils which will destroy the conjugial. This is the authors plain meaning.

To take from his words a meaning which involves anything other than that the animating will of the man must be to approach the Lord, and to shun scortatory love, from the desire for conjugial chastity, is to pervert and misrepresent words which should be sufficiently clear to any intelligent person.

It may be admitted that the use of the word duty does not seem to exactly express the teachings of the Writings which the whole book, LAWS OF ORDER, presents. As the author of this work states more than once, fornication and concubinage are evils. It would therefore seem improper to use the word duty with regard to them. The Writings do not use this word in this connection, but they do use the word necessity. With some men salacity from various causes is so great that it cannot be wholly restrained without injury; it is the part of wisdom to restrain the love of the sex, but if this cannot be done wholly, then to so far restrain it that its going forth shall not destroy the conjugial.

The entrance into that concubinage or pellicacy, which, as the Writings teach are lot destructive of the conjugial, is then a necessity, and under this necessity, the man restrains himself by certain limitations that will not destroy conjugial chastity.