Scientific discovery of Spiritual Laws given in Rational
Scientific Revelations
|
|
Series: |
51
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER
REV.
ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER Dear
Mr. Pfeiffer.
To me that does not appear to be the case. If I understand you correctly
(which I am not quite sure of) it appears that you make the apparent
discreteness of the natural mind to be so real and substantial that the teaching
in DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM is practically put aside. You base, so it seems to me,
your conceptions of three discrete degrees in each of the three heavens and in
each Church on the reality of these discrete degrees, though admitting that it
is only an appearance. Your conception, it seems to me, postulates not three
degrees of the mind but nine, and also nine discretely different heavens. My
study and reflection on what is said in the Latin Word, including A.R. 350, has
led me to a quite different, view, which I will try to set forth briefly. I have
just done so in a letter to Rev. Theodore Pitcairn, but I know it lacked much as
an expression of my view. It is not easy to bring ideas of spiritual things down
in thoughts -and words to be found by the natural mind. What I am to say now may
supplement what I said to him and help to make my idea clearer.
The highest or inmost heaven is mainly composed of angels who as men on
earth were of the Adamic Church, who were in good of life from the Lord through
interior perception of influx of life from Him. This perception gradually
decreased until in the men signified by Noah it had entirely disappeared, but in
whom there were remains of innocence, and a beginning of the rational
understanding to which spiritual truths could be taught as separate from nature
but corresponding.
The highest heaven, or the inmost, is living perception of influx of life
from the Divine in varying grades of intensity from the center to the
circumference. The whole makes one continuous degree regarded in itself and one
of the discrete degrees, the inmost, of the heavens as one. All the angels of
this heaven live in an atmosphere proceeding
52 from
the Lord as a sun, which is the atmosphere of the third degree of truth. The
life of the Lord tempered by that atmosphere
is their
light. The second or middle heaven is composed of angels who as men on
earth were of the Churches of Noah and their descendants down to the Coming of
the Lord. The revelation of life from the Lord
The heaven based on these Churches is one, composed of angels who are
living forms of truth from the good of the highest heaven, truths which
correspond to the different grades of perception there, from inmost to
circumference in one continuous degree. Those in the spiritual Church, if
any, who
through regeneration came to perceive the influx of life from the Lord as
if it were their own, after death were taken to the heaven of perception.
Those who were in good in the Jewish Church before the Coming of the Lord
joined the spiritual heaven after death. Those of the First Christian Church who
were in good and died before the Second Advent of the Lord also were associated
with the existing heavens from previous Churches, unless their good was joined
with so many falsities in their understanding that they were bound in the false
heavens until the Last Judgment.
We are taught that the Churches existing before the Lord's
Coming were
representative Churches,
because interior Churches from remains from the Lord not yet ultimated in
a natural will and understanding of their own.
The men of the Adamic Church had no rational as we understand it any more
than an infant has. Their external 53
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER and
gradually develop an external understanding out of the faculty for rationality
given to all men in creation.
Not until the age of adolescence is the rational in the natural developed
enough to let us see spiritual truths, in the light from the interior to our own
reason and in freedom as of ourselves, and even then the spiritual is seen in
natural form. To this age the Lord comes as man on earth, and is hailed by some
with youthful enthusiasm and with earnest desire to follow Him.
But the rational of this stage is not yet able to understand that the
Divine Human of the Lord is not man born of woman. It is a temporary state
preserving the remains in some and brings their life down into the natural as
worship of a Divine Man. Not until the interior rational has been further
developed through influx from the Lord through the heavens, and sheds its light
on the natural,
That opening of the natural to the light from the internal coincides with
the "coming of age", or early manhood. From then on the rational in
the natural degree can constantly receive more light from the Lord, as the
interior desire for truth and good meets with and joins to itself the truths of
the Divine Human.
In one sense, as I understand it, the New Heaven from those who have
received the Lord in His Divine Human and have brought truths from His Love down
into their natural life, so
moulding it in conformity with those truths, is the only one that can be
called natural, or a heaven in ultimates. The angels of that heaven make one
whole, dwelling
in an
atmosphere of truth from the Divine Human, and that heaven constitutes
one continuous degree, and
looked upon
in its relation to the former heavens it is the lowest of the discrete
heavens which together form one whole man, because it is most ultimate, in
constant and proximate conjunction with the only true and specific Church on
earth.
The words of natural language are poor means for expressing ideas of
spiritual things, but they are the only
54 light
and heat from the Lord. When we have that view in mind, it would be impossible
to think of the New Heaven from the New Church as of one continuous degree. But
the heavens are described from different points of view in the Latin Word, in
relation to each other and according to their performance of use in the Grand
Man. Sometimes the New Church, and therefore the heaven from it, is said to be
the heart and lungs, and again the most external of the Grand Man. I have no
difficulty in combining the different aspects and to think of the New Heaven as
one discrete degree of the whole, yet in itself continuous, the different
societies embodying
different yet continuous grades of reception of the Lord in His Divine
Human; those in the center receiving His Life in a more interior way than the
others, all ranged in the east, south, west, or north in the same heaven; the
inmost in one aspect also the most ultimate,
because the result of more intense struggle against evil in the life on
earth and a fuller bringing down the interior life in ultimates.
The attempt I have made to express my ideas is a hurried one, and I am
well aware of its imperfections and the need of a new effort. But your
interesting letter has been left unanswered too long as it is. I will mention
some things that have been in my mind next time I write you, which I hope will
not be very long. Dear
Mr. Bjorck.
The different aspects of Doctrine are illustrated by the 55
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN
things
which represent it. For example in many places it speaks as if the Doctrine and
the understanding of the Word were one and the same thing, yet in the case of a
horse and chariot, the horse represents the understanding of the Word and
the-chariot the Doctrine. Again a candle or a lamp is said to represent
Doctrine, the lamp being the vessel containing oil. On the other hand the Word
without Doctrine is said to be like a candlestick without light; in this
representation the literal sense is the candlestick and Doctrine the light. Some
of the things representing Doctrine are, a field, a bow, a rainbow, a lip or
tongue, a way, a prophet, a fountain, a ship; as it is too extensive a subject
to enter into these various aspects of the subject, I will leave it for the
present.
It appears from your letter that you are warning against the danger of
making personal or artificial distinctions in the Church, as would be done if it
were said that so and so is a spiritual man and so and so is a natural man. The
Lord alone orders and disposes the Church, and man must not make any personal
judgments.
That there are degrees of altitude as well as degrees of length and
breadth in the New Church appears to be clearly taught in the APOCALYPSE
REVEALED, n. 348—363; compare also the APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED, n. 429—452.
THEODORE PITCAIRN REV.
ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN Dear
Mr. Pitcairn.
I have wondered if this is really the position of DE HEMELSCHE LEER, or
if Mr. Pfeiffer in his desire to 56
A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE defend
the truth as he sees it was led to use an expression that does not really bring
out the position.
If the position is truly described in the sentence quoted, namely that
man's reception of good and truth from the Lord is Divine, I regard it as an
error. Man must cooperate with the Lord, and his reception of truth and good is
from that cooperation. The power to cooperate with the Lord is given man by the
Lord from creation. It belongs to the man as a created being, and can never
become Divine because it is from the Divine. One might as well say that the
living forms on earth, or the earth itself, is the sun, because they are created
from the sun.
The Lord's human reception of the truths of the Word was indeed Divine
always, because the Divine was the inmost of His Human. Man's inmost, his soul,
is a first finite receptacle of the
Divine, and the finite can never become the infinite.
ALBERT BJORCK REV.
ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFEER Dear
Mr. Pfeiffer.
On p. 56 you say "That by the Doctrine of the Church not the
Writings of Swedenborg are meant, but the vision of these Writings and the Word
as a whole which the Church gradually acquires for itself; and second, that this
Doctrine of the Church is of purely Divine origin and of a purely Divine
essence".
This I fully agree with, and I think most thinking New Churchmen would.
But the very fact that a true vision of the Word as a whole is only gradually
acquired by the Church, seems to indicate that during this gradual process *
Pp. 111—144 of the Third Fascicle. ED. 57
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER
falsities
may adhere to -the vision, though they may be removed one after another as the
vision clears. This I think is also plainly taught in the Latin Word.
Though the Doctrine of the Church in itself is of Divine origin and of a
purely Divine essence, the vision the Church
I agree fully with what is said in the second paragraph p. 61, beginning,
"By the influx from the Lord", and also with the thoughts expressed in
the following paragraph. What I have said in my pamphlet will show that I also
agree with what is said in the next paragraph on p. 62, that the rational must
be inspired, that is, elevated and illumined, in order to see the Doctrine which
is in itself Divine; yet, this elevation and illumination of the rational is
also progressive. When you say, "it is never anything by itself, it is
never anything but the recipient of the Divine Human of the Lord", I cannot
agree. The human faculty of rationality is from the Lord, given to man in
creation. It is not the Lord, but created by the Lord in man.
In the previous paragraph you say: "The rational is only a recipient
or dwelling place for the Doctrine". A recipient vessel is something by
itself, and that which fills it takes on the form of the vessel. Man cooperates
with the Lord in regeneration by receiving good and truth from the Lord, opening
his rationality to the Lord's teaching in the Word and shunning the evils there
shown him to be residing in his will and thoughts. The devils in hell have the
faculty of rationality, but with them it is not a receptive vessel of the
Divine Human. Man's reception of the Divine can never be the Divine itself.
Some men's visions of the Lord as He reveals Himself in the Word may
closely resemble each other, but they will never be exactly alike. As the Church
grows numerically there will therefore be more diversity of vision, that is, of
Doctrine. Some men's Doctrine will be more external, 58 truth
from the Lord's Divine Human, though their understanding of the Doctrine may
differ.
We cannot say that because a man's understanding or vision
of the
Lord's Divine Human, as he
is able to
When you say that the Church hitherto has been in a natural state, I
suppose you mean the Church at The Hague which you have been in intimate contact
with, and as teacher and leader have had ample opportunity to observe the state
of. But by the way you express yourself you give the impression that you
consider the Society at The Hague to be in a state of more advanced regeneration
than the rest of the Church, seeing truth from good, and therefore able to get a
vision of the Word as a whole, or
Such expressions seem to embody the idea, that you not only speak from
the Lord, but that it is the Lord Himself who speaks through you. If so, then
indeed your magazine would be a New Word of the Lord, giving the internal sense
of the Latin Word. That would indeed be possible if, as you say on p. 58,
"the internal man is the soul itself, which is Divine and above man's
reach". But that is not the teaching of the Latin Word, as far as I can
see. Man's soul is not Divine, but the first created receptacle for the Lord's
life to flow into and be received by. The first receptacle of life, or man's
soul, is from 59
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER the
finest created
substances which
enclose the
Lord's dwelling place — the inmost. In this soul are implanted seeds of
good from the Lord, but also tendencies to all kinds of evils by inheritance in
all born from human father and mother. From these seeds the human proprium
grows,
The Divine Human has no human father, but the Divine itself is its
Father. Therefore the Divine seed
In the genealogy of Luke, which represents the growth of the Divine Human
seed to complete union with the Lord from eternity, Mary is not even mentioned.
Mary represents the Church. She also represents the affection for Divine Truth
laid down in the human soul from creation, because without that affection there
could never be any Church. That affection is the beginning of the Church in man,
but it is not Divine, but created by the Lord in .the soul of
Thinking of the difference in our views of the correspondence of the
different Churches with the ages of man, I would draw your attention to n.
10225, of the ARCANA
60
A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE CELESTIA,
which seems to give further support to my conception as to the state of the New
Church as a whole at the present time. To me it seems impossible to think that
the Church has grown beyond the earlier years of manhood. To me it seems that
most of us are still in the Ishmaelitish rational, discussing truths
and defending each his own understanding of it. And I think the Church
necessarily has to go through such a period in its growth. At any rate we seem
to be yet far from that innocence of wisdom that belongs to old age, when man is
no longer concerned about understanding truths and goods, but about willing and
living them.
ALBERT BJORCK Dear
Mr. Bjorck. 61
REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK not
pure before the Lord, and that all good and all truth are of the only Lord. But
so far as a man or an Angel is capable of being perfected, so far, out of the
Lord's Divine Mercy, he is perfected, and receives as it were an understanding
of truth and a will of good; but his having these is only an appearance. Every
man can be perfected, and consequently receive this gift of the Lord's Mercy, in
accordance with the actual doings of his life, and in a manner suited to the
hereditary evil implanted from his parents" (n. 633).
The above makes it clear that the understanding of truth and the will of
good are the Lord's and are thus Divine, and that it is only an appearance that
man has an understanding of truth or will of good; if man had an understanding
of truth or a will of goad, this would mean that man's proprium was not wholly
evil. It is known that it is the
Lord's proprium
that makes the Church and
not anything of man's proprium, and
as it is the Lord's proprium with the Church which receives good and truth this
reception is Divine.
This can be confirmed by innumerable passages; the following few must
here suffice. We read in HEAVEN AND HELL: "Man is so far in innocence as he
is removed from his proprium; and so far as anyone is removed from his proprium,
he is in the Lord's proprium" (n. 341). In the APOCALYPSE REVEALED:
"The Divine can be with man, but not in his proprium; for the proprium of
man is nothing but evil; and therefore he who ascribes what is Divine to himself
as his proprium ... profanes it. What is Divine from the Lord is exquisitely
separated from the proprium of man, and is elevated above it, and never immersed
in it" (n. 758). "Heaven is not Heaven from the things proper to the
Angels" (n. 882). In the MEMORABILIA: "All good is the proprium of the
Lord" (n. 1178). "The Holy with Angels and spirits is the proprium of
the Lord; and that which is the proprium of an Angel and spirit is evil and
unclean" (n. 1370). In the APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED: "The Lord is not
conjoined with the proprium of man, but with His Own with him. The Lord removes
the proprium of 62
A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE he
can be removed from his proprium. These means are given in the Word; and, when a
man operates by these means, that is, thinks and speaks, wills and acts out of
the Divine Word, he is then kept out of the Lord in Divine things, and is thus
withheld from the proprium; and when this lasts, as it were a new proprium, both
voluntary and intellectual, is formed with man from the Lord, which is
completely separated from the proprium of man" (n. 585).
The means by which the proprium of the Lord is built into a Church is
described in the formation of Eve out of the rib of Adam. We read: "By Adam
himself is there meant the Loud as to the Divine Itself and at the same time the
Divine Human; and by his wife the Church, which is called 'Chavah' from life,
because it has life from the Lord, and of her Adam said, she was his bone and
his flesh, and that they were one flesh, because the Church is from the Lord and
out of Him and as one with Him" (CONCERNING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE FROM
EXPERIENCE XIV).
From the above it is evident that it is the Proprium of the Lord with man
that receives good and truth, and hence that the reception is Divine. The
cooperation on the part of man is "as of himself" for the sake of
appropriation. Nevertheless, as stated above, "Man receives as it were an
understanding of truth and a will of good; but his having these is only an
appearance", for the reason that the reception of good and truth is the
Lord's and hence Divine, and is not at all man's.
I will look forward to seeing you before or after the Assembly.
THEODORE PITCAIRN REV.
ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN Dear
Mr. Pitcairn. 63
REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK tion
to the teaching I referred to — or rather to my understanding of the teaching
given 138 — when seen in connection with what is said in other places. I am
not at present able to refer you to many special numbers, but I have just lately
read THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION 470, where the general teaching is given very
clearly. In a recent letter to Mr. Pfeiffer I have stated my understanding more
fully than I did in my letter to you, and what you have said does not invalidate
that view as far as I can see.
Man's soul is not life but the first receptacle of life. Man's will is
not itself love but a receptacle of love, and man's understanding is the
receptacle of truth. They are both formed — created from finite substances —
by the Lord in the embryo. If man receives the good of love in his will and the
truth of wisdom in his understanding, he becomes an image — a finite one —
of the Divine. Man prepares himself for a receptacle of the Divine as he from
natural power believes in God and loves the neighbor (cf. T. C. R. 74). It will be a pleasure to be able to talk with you on this and other points before or after the Assembly. ALBERT
BJORCK Dear
Mr. Bjorck. While
man is a receptacle of life and a receptacle of good and truth, or rather may
become such a receptacle, it is not a merely passive receptacle, but a reactive
receptacle. If man were a passive receptacle he would be like a stalk. Man as to
his proprium or as to what is his own is not a receptacle of good and truth, but
of their opposites. The question is, what is the reactive essence in the
receptacle, which is the basis of the reformation and regeneration of the
receptacle so that it can receive good and truth from
the Lord. Since the Coming of the Lord this essential reactive in the receptacle
is the Proprium of the Divine Human of the Lord. Hence it is that the Lord is
the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, in the regenerated 65
REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK THE
TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, n. 470, life would be in man, and man would not be a
receptacle but would be life, yea he would be God.
The men of the Most Ancient Church we are told had the Word written on
their hearts, that is Divine good and truth were written or impressed on their
will; but although it was written on their hearts and they were thus kept by the
Lord in Divine good and truth, the Word was not theirs, but was wholly the
Lord's. Because they were held in Divine good and Divine truth, and indeed had
these written on their hearts, when they fell and thus perverted this Doctrine
into its opposite, they claimed the Divine good and truth which had been written
on their hearts as their own; thus they made themselves gods.
To deny that the will of good and the understanding of truth are Divine
is to deny that it is wholly the Lord's and not at all man's, that is, to
confirm the fallacy of the senses spoken of in T. C. R. 470. Note that the will
of good and the understanding of truth is not the vessel but the active; it is
the vessel which causes the appearance that they are as it were man's own, and
which thus causes them to be attributed to man as if they were his. Men are in
appearances, but appearances are not the will of good nor the understanding of
truth, but if man acknowledges that the appearances with him are appearance and
that the will of good and the understanding of truth are the Lord's and are not
man's, then the will of good and the understanding of truth are in the
appearances, and the Lord dwells in man and man in the Lord.
I am looking forward with great pleasure to seeing you before the British
Assembly.
THEODORE PITCAIRN
66 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE a
man wishes and does this as out of himself no such faculty can be appropriated
to him; since in order that appropriation may be affected, there must be an
active and a reactive. The active is from the Lord, so is the reactive, but the
latter appears to be from man; for the Lord Himself gives this reactive, and
thence it is from the Lord and not from man; but as man does not know otherwise
than that he lives out of himself, and consequently that he thinks and wills out
of himself, so he must needs do this as out of the proprium of his own
life". REV.
ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK Dear
Mr. Bjorck. 67
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK
genuine
Doctrine of the Church does truly correspond to the Divine Human of the Lord,
and by no means ex opposite. Although the Church and the Doctrine of the Church
are not infinite, nevertheless they are Divine. The living Church, as to its
Doctrine, is the Holy City, and it is also the Bride of the Lamb. The Lord in it
dwells in His Own. I find it difficult to believe that in your letters
That you seem not to make this distinction I take from 68 the
Lord with man, and yet it is not life- but a recipient of life.
In confirmation of the above I would
like to quote the following passages from the Latin Word. In the ARCANA CELESTIA:
"The Divine must be in what is Divine; not in the proprium
of anyone"
(n. 9338).
"All good
is Divine with man, because it is from the Divine" (n. 10618).
"Then they do not think out of themselves, neither are they affected by the
Word out of themselves, but out of the Lord; therefore not anything evil or
false does enter, for the Lord removes these" (n. 10638). In the APOCALYPSE
REVEALED: "That which is from God . . . is called Divine" (n. 961).
And in THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION: "Nothing can proceed from God but what
is Himself, and is called the Divine" (n. 6).
It may be clear that this position is
in no way in contradiction with the fact that there must be progress in the
Doctrine of the Church, as you seem to think. It can be compared with the
orderly growth of the human body, which from creation as to all its essentials
is purely Divine, and nevertheless begins from a seed. So also from re-creation
or regeneration, the body of the genuine Church is purely Divine. How otherwise
could it ever be the Bride of the Lamb and the Wife of the Lord? The evils and
falsities of which you speak, by no means belong to its organics, they are
altogether extraneous to them. Falsities which may rule among the members of the
Church do not belong to the genuine Doctrine of the Church. This latter is
spiritual out of celestial origin (A. C. 2496); the Lord is that Doctrine itself
(A. C. 2533, 2859; A. E. 19). REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER May
20th 1932. Dear Mr. Pfeiffer. I
thank you for your interesting and lucid letter. What you have said has made it
easier for me to understand your position, but not easier to agree with it. The
sense in which you use the term "The Doctrine of the Church" when
saying that it is Divine, is, as I understand it, 69
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER
something
like this: The Heavenly Doctrine is the Lord Himself because proceeding from
Him, and thus Divine. It is the teaching of Divine Wisdom proceeding from Divine
Love, or the Lord in His Divine Human coming to men as the Word. When men see
and live according to the genuine truths of the Divine Doctrine in the Word,
that Doctrine is as it were gradually transferred from the Word to men, and so
it becomes the Doctrine of the Church. As it proceeds from the Divine, it is
Divine in men. Growing in the Church as a plant grows from a seed, it becomes
the finite image
and likeness
of the Divine Doctrine which
is the Lord Himself as the Word.
So far, if this is a correct
understanding of your position, I am in full agreement with you.
The good and truth in the Church is
from the Lord alone, and is the Divine to which the Lord can come — that in
man or the Church which is His own. And so far as the perception in the Church
of what is good and true from the Lord corresponds to the Divine Doctrine in the
Word, so far the Doctrine of the Church is Divine, and can grow and be perfected
to eternity. It is the Divine finited in the heavens and the Church.
But, as I understand the teaching
given us, neither man's reception, nor
his conception
or understanding of
the Doctrine is Divine.
The human internal is the Lord's. In
it His own infinite life dwells, and from there He creates and forms man's
internal for a receptacle of life corresponding to His; and through the internal
so formed He creates the interior in correspondence with it, and through both He
creates the natural to correspond with them. So created man is a finite
correspondence to the infinite Divine Man, or, if you please, the infinite
finited. Therefore it is said that, if the Most Ancient Church had remained in
its integrity, there
But it is through man's consciousness
on the natural degree of the mind that man's life becomes separate from the
Divine and as it were independent of it.
This is of course only an appearance,
as there can be no life independent of Life itself, but the separation of human
70
A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE life
from the Divine is real, and the Lord created man with such a mind purposely, in
order that there should come into being individual forms perceiving the
inflowing life from Him as their own, and free to use that life as if it were
their own, yet, in the beginning with an inward perception of how to use it from
love of good and truth. If
It is the separation from Life itself
which makes man
Neither is man's understanding or
perception of the Divine Doctrine in the Word Divine. It can indeed come to
correspond more and more closely to the Divine Doctrine, but even with the most
regenerate man it remains human.
This is so because man's understanding
or perception of Divine Truth is subject to the cooperation of his natural will
and understanding with the Spirit of the Lord in the Divine Doctrine.
In man's natural will there are
tendencies by inheritance to all kinds of evil, and in his understanding a
tendency to false reasoning from sense impressions. These tendencies must be
overcome before man's understanding can come to correspond with the Divine
Doctrine; and when it does correspond it is still a human understanding or
perception, not a Divine one.
The Doctrine of the Church is
therefore always one with the understanding the Church has of the Divine 71
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER
Doctrine,
and imperfections and falsities are bound to adhere temporarily to the
understanding men who compose the Church have of the Divine Doctrine in the
Word. These falsities or
imperfections do not belong to
the Divine Doctrine, and
they can be dropped off from the human doctrine of the Church one by one as
men's understanding is illumined by the Divine Doctrine.
It seems to me that you both in DE
HEMELSCHE LEER and in your letters to me, lose sight of, or do not pay enough
attention to, the difference between the human and the Divine. This is shown in
your use of expressions like "essentially and purely Divine" applied
to things created human by the Lord; and this, I think, is the main cause of the
non understanding of your position that you find in others, who do not use the
terms in the sense you do, but by "essentially and purely Divine" mean
the things that belong to the Divine itself, the Lord and the Word. There is an
instance in your last letter, where you say that the human body "from
creation as to all its essentials is purely Divine". Another is in your
illustration of how finite things by correspondence can be Divine, where you say
that "as long as the body corresponds to the soul, it is sane and lives,
but as soon as the correspondence ceases, it dies". However closely the
body may correspond to the soul, it
The Lord's human was glorified and
became Divine, but the Lord's Human was from the beginning the Divine Life
itself, not created. Man is created human, and though his regeneration is an
image of the Lord's glorification and corresponds to it, he does not by
regeneration become Divine.
I most heartily wish that we may come
to understand each other better, and I think we all will when we take pains in
explaining the sense in which we use terms.
I shall look forward to receive
further letters from you, and to meet and talk with you later in the summer. 72
A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE Dear
Mr. Bjorck.
In your last letter you again much
enlarge on the truth that man is only a receptacle of life, and that he has
received the gift of freedom and rationality, without which he would be only an
automaton. Of this gift you say: "It is that which makes man man, it is the
Creator's gift to man, and though from the Divine it is not Divine". From
what has been said in the last paragraph of p. 92 and the first paragraph of p.
93 of the Third Fascicle, it may be clear that the truths concerning man as a
receptacle of life and concerning the gift of freedom and rationality have fully
been taken into account in our position; but it may also appear from the numbers
of the work on DIVINE PROVIDENCE which have been quoted in those passages, that
that gift, being from the Divine, being thus the Lord with man, is Divine. The
teaching is that by that gift the Lord is conjoined with man, but that only
after regeneration man becomes also conjoined with the Lord. Your words:
"It is the Creator's gift to man, and though from the Divine it is not
Divine", are altogether incomprehensible to me. The teaching is in many
places that nothing can be from the Divine but what is Divine, or what is called
the Divine. How can we speak of "the Creator's 73
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER
TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK gift",
unless that gift
is Divine?
Can the
Lord give anything which is
not Divine?
It is true, of course, that as far as
man is not regenerated his use of that gift is not Divine; it is rather an abuse
than
Now it is the human with man, or his
natural mind, which must be regenerated. By regeneration the human of
You write: "Man's understanding
can indeed come to correspond more and more closely to the Divine Doctrine, but
even with the most regenerate man it remains human". Further on you say:
"It seems to me that you lose sight of the difference between the human and
the Divine". The human about which you speak here, is either an orderly
human or a disorderly human. Before regeneration it is disorderly, after
regeneration it is orderly. Before regeneration it is infernal, after
regeneration it is Divine. It is by virtue of the fact that the Lord glorified
His human that
74 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE every
regenerated man, and indeed as to the human of him, for anything •else than
the human does not need to be regenerated.
It is not the Latin Word which makes
the New Church, but the understanding of the Latin Word, or the purity of the Doctrine
born in the Church from within. Apart from the Divine of the Latin Word itself
there must be the Divine of the understanding or reception of that Word. Unless
the understanding or reception be Divine the Divine of the Word remains outside
of man, and then there is no regeneration and no Church. What is seen and
acknowledged as the Church by the Lord, is that alone which is Divine by virtue
of a Divine reception.
I repeat what I said in my last
letter: the real issue is this that in Heaven and in the genuine Church the
reception of the Divine influx is Divine, while in hell and with man as far as
he is not regenerated, the reception is not Divine. You have not entered upon
this crucial point. If the Divine
Of course, the necessity of progress
is not lost sight of in this view. Nor does it mean that man after the beginning
of regeneration is now at once altogether Divine and free of falsities and
evils; of course not. But the falsities and evils are extraneous to that which
has been regenerated. With the very beginning of regeneration and rebirth, there
is a complete new human being in man, though it is first only as a new born
infant. It is altogether Divine. It is the child of the Lord. And it gradually
grows up and becomes adult. Nothing evil can ever enter it. The evils and
falsities of the man which are not yet removed by temptations are altogether
extraneous to the organics of that new born spiritual being in us. The entering
of evils and falsities here would mean profanation and the spiritual death of 75
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK
The genuine Doctrine of the Church, being spiritual oat of celestial
origin, is born. from that regenerated Divine human being in the living Church.
The Word remains closed without that.
You say: "Man's understanding ...
can indeed come to correspond more and more closely to the Divine Doctrine, but
even with the most regenerate man it remains human. This is so because man's
understanding of Divine Truth is subject
to the
cooperation of
his natural
will and understanding. . .
. In man's natural will there are tendencies by inheritance to all kinds of
evil", etc. It is the plain teaching, however, that as far as regeneration
goes, all evils have been removed, and that no evils or falsities are then
suffered to enter, "for the Lord removes them" (A.C. 10638).
It is therefore irrelevant to adduce
the fact that no man is completely regenerated in one moment. This has nothing
whatever to do with the real issue. Even with the Angels regeneration goes on to
eternity; nevertheless it is the Divine of the Lord which makes an Angel. The Heavens
I have been preparing myself to write
you a series of short notes on three or four other points of our latest
correspondence; but before actually doing so, I hope that we can come to a
mutual understanding of this elementary problem of the Divinity of Doctrine born
in the Church, 76 Groeneveld
*, which, throws more light on the relation. between the Word and the Doctrine
of the Church. Dear
Mr. Pfeiffer. Thank
you for your letter. I will not be able to give it the full consideration it
requires until after the 12th.
The proofs of Mr. Groeneveld's article
I have read with great interest, and find no difficulty in accepting it.
ALBERT BJORCK Dear
Mr. Bjorck. We
read in the APOCALYPSE REVEALED, n.97: "Who does not know that the Church
is not Church without Doctrine"? And in n. 486: "It is these three
things which make the Church, the Truth of doctrine, the Good of love, and
Worship out of these". And in n. 675: "The all of the Church is
doctrine which shall teach truth and through truth good". Do
you agree that in these passages by the word "Doctrine" not the Word
itself is meant, but the Doctrine born in the Church; in the New Church
therefore not the Third Testament, but the Doctrine seen at a given time and
guiding the Church at a given time? That this is so seems evident from the fact
that a body of men may have the Third Testament while at the same time they have
no genuine Doctrine out of it. Do you agree with this? In
THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, n. 245, we read: "That the Church is according
to its Doctrine, and that the Doctrine should be out of the Word, is known. But
nevertheless it is not the doctrine which establishes the Church,
but the
integrity and
purity of Doctrine, 77
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK
consequently
the understanding of the Word". In this passage it openly speaks of the
indispensableness of a doctrine which must be "integer" and pure, thus
Divine, for nothing but the Divine is "integer" and pure. The
Divine of the Word in itself is therefore not sufficient to make the Church; it
is the understanding of the Word which makes
the Church. It is thus the understanding of the Third Testament which
makes the New Church. Do you agree with this? If you accept the first point of
this letter, you must necessarily also accept this point, for if you admit that
the Third Testament is the Word itself, and not Doctrine out of the Word, then
this is openly taught in the n. 245 quoted from THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. Number
245 of THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION thus teaches that it is the understanding of
the Third Testament which makes the New Church. Do you agree with this? Does it
not then necessarily follow that that understanding must be Divine? How can
anything else but the Divine establish and make the Church? And yet in your
letters you repeatedly say that the understanding of truth with man is not
Divine. If this were true, there could never be a Church. The Word would always
remain outside of man. And yet in the n. 675 of the APOCALYPSE REVEALED, quoted
above, it says: "It is true that the Word, Christ the Savior, and the
Sacraments, are the Church, and that these make the Church; but they do not make
it outside of man but within man".
ERNST PFEIFFER REV.
ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK Dear
Mr. Bjorck.
In your letter to Rev. Pitcairn of
April 14th you say: "I certainly believe that the Doctrine of genuine truth
in the Church is Divine". And in confirmation of this you quote from your
recent pamphlet, p. 77, where you say,: "The Doctrine of the Church
therefore in a very real sense is the
Coming of
the Lord
to the
Church and
to the 78 individual
man of the Church; if the Doctrine is from a genuine understanding of the Divine
Truth in the Word of His Second Coming". Further on in the same letter you
say: "Sometimes the Doctrine of the Church in DE HEMELSCHE LEER is defined
as a vision of the Divine Truth in the Word. If the vision is true, and the
thought or understanding is a true form of that vision, I think we all
agree". In these places you thus speak of "a genuine
understanding", of "a vision which is true", and of "an
understanding which is a true form of a true vision". But there can be no
question of "a genuine understanding", In
your letter to Mr. Pitcaim of April 28th you say: "DE HEMELSCHE LEER (in a
sentence occurring on p. 125 of the Second Fascicle) says in so many words, that
not only the truths and goods from the Lord in man are Divine, but also man's
reception of them. . . . If the position is
truly described
in that
sentence, namely
that man's reception of good
and truth from the Lord is Divine, I regard it as an error. Man must cooperate
with the Lord, and his reception of truth and good is from that
cooperation". It does not seem possible to me to say "the truths and
goods from the Lord in man are Divine" if at the 79
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK of
the Divine Truth-in the Word" or of "a vision which is true", it
is clear that you speak of truth which is within
In your letter to Mr. Pitcairn of
April 14th, after having spoken of "a genuine understanding of the Divine
Truth" and of "a vision which is true", you say: "Men may
have 80
A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE "genuine
understanding" is mixed with falsities, then the Doctrine of .the Church is
also mixed with falsities, for
But indeed I believe you will agree that the Divine Truth of the Third
Testament cannot be poured into the Church, so as to become there the Divine
Doctrine of the Church, like water from a bottle is poured into a glass. This
also appears from the continuation of that passage 81
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK which
I quoted from your letter to Mr. Pitcairn of April 28th. You there say: "If
the position of DE HEMELSCHE LEER is truly described in the sentence that man's
reception of good and truth from the Lord is Divine, I regard it as 82
A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE you
to ARCANA CELESTIA 3490, which expressly teaches that after regeneration,
everything with man, including the whole human, thus both the rational and the
natural, has become Divine. This number has already been quoted on 83
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK
image
of the Lord's glorification, and corresponds to it, he does not by regeneration
become Divine". The n. 3490 of the ARCANA, quoted by Mr. Pitcairn, will no
doubt be sufficient to convince you that this sentence is in contradiction with
the teaching of the Word. The difference between the Lord's Human and man's
human after regeneration is not that the one is Divine and the other not Divine,
but that the one is the Divine itself and the other is Divine from the Divine;
the one is Life itself, and the other has Life in itself from Life itself. That
man after regeneration has Life from the Lord is taught especially in many
places of the New Testament from the Lord's own mouth; please look it up also as
described in THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, n. 249.
In your letter to Mr. Pitcairn of April 14th you say: "Sometimes the
Doctrine of the Church in DE HEMELSCHE LEER is defined as a vision of the Divine
Truth in the Word. If the vision is true, and the thought or understanding is a
true form of that vision, I think we all agree. But in some places the Doctrine
of the Church is spoken of in a way that seems to imply that it is not thought
of as the result of, or equivalent with, a true understanding of the Word, but
as something abstract which gives light to our understanding, and yet it is not
the same as the Divine Doctrine of the Word. I have been at a loss to understand
clearly just what is meant by the Doctrine as spoken of in DE HEMELSCHE LEER,
seeing that it is claimed that no falsity from man's understanding can adhere to
it". The Divine Truth of the Word cannot be transferred into the Church so
as to become the Divine Doctrine of the Church, without all the human faculties
being involved in the reception. But such a transfer is only possible if the
human faculties have become Divine by regeneration. The progress of that
regeneration is described in the 12th, 20th, and 26th chapters of GENESIS. From
your remark it seems that the essential purport of what has been said on this
subject on pp. 14-17 and 56-65 of the First Fascicle, has not yet had your
consideration. The fundamental teaching of those chapters is that the genuine
Doctrine born in the Church is spiritual out of celestial origin and thus purely
Divine (see especially the numbers quoted in connection with the Leading Theses
on p. 2 of the Third
84
A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE Fascicle).
From your remark: "I have been at a loss to understand clearly just what is
meant by the Doctrine of the Church as spoken of in DE HEMELSCHE LEER, seeing
that it is claimed that no falsity from man's understanding
The following points should be seen as essential truths with regard to
the relation between the Third Testament and the Doctrine of the New Church:
1. The Divine of the Third
Testament by itself alone is not sufficient to redeem and save the human race
and to build the New Church. Without the Divine in man by regeneration, whereby
the Divine of the Third Testament is transferred
into the
Church, the
Word of
the Third Testament remains
closed and not understood; there is no Church and no salvation; the Second
Coming which the Lord has made in the Third Testament is still of no avail.
2. The Divine in man whereby
the Divine of the Third Testament is transferred from outside man to within man,
comes into existence by his regeneration.
3. By regeneration a new man
is conceived and born in man. By this new birth the old man is not completely
put aside at once; but nevertheless the evils and falsities which are still
present in the old man are extraneous to the 85
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK
Doctrine
are as yet really opened truths, but the unopened truths in it are not
falsities. Even with the highest Angel it remains always true that what he knows
compared with what he does not know, is as a cup of water in relation to the
ocean. If in the face of this truth it is still held that with man the will and
the understanding remain always mixed with evils and falsities, then it would
follow from this that the Divine of the Third Testament can never be transferred
into the Church so as to become the Divine Doctrine of the Church. The Word then
necessarily always would remain closed; there would be no possibility of
salvation; for it is only by that in man which through regeneration has become
purely Divine and free of all evils and falsities, that the Divine of the Third
Testament which is outside of man can be transferred to become the Divine of the
Doctrine of the Church within man. If not, the Divine will always remain outside
of man.
In your letter of May 1st to me you say: "On p. 56 of the First
Fascicle you say, 'that by the Doctrine of the Church not the Writings of
Swedenborg are meant, but the vision of these Writings and the Word as a whole
which the Church gradually acquires for itself; and second, that this Doctrine
of the Church is of purely Divine origin and of a purely Divine essence'. This I
fully agree with, and I think most thinking New Churchmen would. But the very
fact that a true vision of the Word as a whole is only gradually acquired by the
Church, seems to indicate that during this gradual process falsities may adhere
to the vision, though they may be removed one after another as the vision
clears. This I think is also plainly taught in the Latin Word". Allow me to
make two remarks with regard to this. First, you say that you fully agree with that quotation from the
First Fascicle, and that you think that most thinking New Churchmen would. But
from all I have said thus far in this letter, it will now be plain to you that
if it is said that "the Doctrine of the Church is of purely Divine origin
and of a purely Divine essence", this can only be by virtue of the Divine
of the reception or of the vision. If the Divine of the reception is denied, the
expression "the Doctrine of the Church is Divine" loses all its
meaning. Secondly, as soon as regeneration has begun, there is the Divine new
man which is within, and there is
85
A CORRESPONDENCE ON
THE DOCTRINE the
proprial old man which is without. It is one of the foremost laws of Providence
that they should be kept absolutely distinct, for a mixture or confusion of them
would mean profanation and an unavoidable spiritual death. Evils and falsities
are only in the old man; the new man is absolutely free of them. While it is
indeed true that evils and falsities adhere to-man as long as he is not fully
introduced into Heaven, it ought to be realized that those evils and falsities
do not adhere to the new man but are altogether extraneous to
him. From
this the
fallacy involved in the conclusion of the sentence "But the very
fact that. a true vision of the Word as a whole is only gradually acquired by
the Church, seems to indicate that during this gradual process falsities may
adhere to the vision", may clearly become evident. The fact that evils and
falsities adhere to the old man does not indicate that evils and falsities
adhere to the new man. This would be
I repeat, if there were not a Divine reception and thus a purely Divine
vision and understanding, the Divine Truth of the Word would always remain
outside of man.
In conclusion I wish to take up the following passage from your letter to
Mr. Pitcairn of April 28th: I refer
to such statements as for example in DE HEMELSCHE LEER, Second Fascicle, p. 125,
'That the reception with the non regenerate man is not Divine certainly does not
in any way do away with the fact that the reception with the regenerated man is
Divine'. In its character of defense against Dr. Acton's criticism this sentence
to most would involve 87
REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK I
can. only assure you that in this or other passages not for a moment the thought
has been of the regeneration of any particular person. I simply stated the
abstract truth that with the regenerate man the reception is Divine, while with
the non-regenerate man it is not Divine. I regret to
I thank you in advance for all the trouble and time which the reading of
this long letter and the two previous letters will require from you. I hope that
it will bring us nearer to each other. I am most anxious to come to a clear
agreement with regard to certain essential points, before I will have to meet
and speak with our brethren in England in August.
ERNST
PFEIFFER 88
In
this connection
read ARCANA CELESTIA 1661,
in which it is taught that every man at first believes that goods and truths
from which he combats are his own, and that he attributes them to himself. This
evidently does not refer to the general acknowledgement that all good and truth
are from the Lord, for this all New Churchmen acknowledge. The goods and truths
spoken of are the goods and truths from which man combats, such truths being
obviously goods and truths which have been received, as is clear from the whole
number. Were this not the case how could it be said: "I will put My law in
the midst of them, and write it on their hearts" (Jer. 31 : 32). Here the
meaning of covenant is clearly explained, that it is the love and faith in the
Lord which is with those who are to be regenerated (cf. A. C. 666). That this
refers to the will and 'understanding see the same number. I am looking forward to seeing you the end of next month. THEODORE
PITCAIRN REV.
ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK Dear
.Mr. Bjorck. REV.
ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER Dear
Mr. Pfeiffer. 89
REV. ALBERT BJORCK. TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER ought
to be clear that I agree with you in a great many essential things, though I
cannot accept some of the conclusions you draw, because I do not see that they
are in agreement with the teaching in the Final Testament.
We have both a fairly wide knowledge of the literal
I do differ from your understanding of man's reception and understanding
of genuine truth as being Divine, and the reason for this disagreement I think
is to be found in the original disagreement between us regarding the natural
degree of the human mind and the development of the rational and its functions.
I stated my understanding of this as clearly as I could in the last of
the THREE STUDIES, with many references to the literal teaching of the Final
Testament. You have said that you have taken that teaching in consideration in
staling your position in DE HEMELSCHE LEER, which therefore remains unaltered.
You still apparently think that there is a natural, a spiritual, and a
celestial church,
I cannot see that this agrees with the teaching. I am
90 is
so plain and definite that it cannot be left out of consideration, and it is in
harmony with what is said of the natural degree of the mind and about the
atmospheres in n. 184, in INTERCOURSE 16, and CORONIS 17.
Your reasoning with regard to man's reception of the Divine is very
logical, but you draw conclusions that I do not see can be drawn, if the
character and function of the natural mind are well considered and understood.
You agree with me that it is the natural degree of the mind that must be
regenerated. It is in and through the natural mind that man can feel the life he
receives from the Lord, who is Life itself, as if it were his own, and therefore
regard the affections in his will and the thoughts of his understanding as
proper to the life he feels as his
In the beginning when man was being created he was conscious on the
celestial degree, and when, after what corresponds to birth, he was given
consciousness on the natural degree of the mind, influx of good and truth from
the Lord came directly through the open celestial degree into his natural and
gave him to perceive the correspondence of natural things to the good and truth
from the Lord that he was interiorly conscious of. Natural things became a
revelation to his natural mind, and gave him to feel that his affections and
thoughts were his own, or that they
As there can be no conjunction of God and man and of man with God unless
man has a life that he feels as his own, and which therefore is his proprium,
his own proper life, such a proprium was given him (A.C. 132, 134). The
proprium is necessary for a being destined to freedom of will and action
according to his reason. As long
Man's freedom to live from himself or from the Lord presupposes an
equilibrium between two forces. Influx from the Lord through the open celestial
degree gave man interior perception of good and therefore of truth; revelation
from without gave him knowledge of the good and the wisdom from truth on the
natural degree, and he therefore 91
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER
felt
this good and. truth as his own. Man's proprium was vivified from the Lord's
proprium (A.C. 149).
Conscious of life as it were his own, man desires to live from his own
knowledge of good and from the wisdom he feels as his own, and thus the
equilibrium necessary for freedom was created. As
men of the first church abused the freedom so given them by the Creator, their
inner perception of good and truth from Him gradually disappeared.
The celestial degree of
their mind was gradually closed, man became consciously living only on the
natural degree, and as the inner perception failed, their knowledge of
correspondences
And though this reformed and vivified proprium is from the Lord's
proprium, it is still man's. He feels it as his own proper life, and it is
called angelic or heavenly (A.C. 252). "It is not possible for the Lord to
be in any angel 92 wisdom,
perceives and feels these as his own." (D.L.W. 113—118; A.C. 1937, 2883).
The Lord is the Word. The good and truth revealed in the Word are the
Lord. Received by man they are the Lord in man, but man must receive them as of
himself by the will in his reformed proprium. and make them his
The new man so born is truly human from the Lord, created in His image
and likeness. Therefore he can love the Lord and what is good and true from the
Lord in other
In DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM, n. 49, it is said: "With respect to God:
to love and to be loved in turn is not possible in relation to others in whom
there is anything of infinity, or anything of the Divine".
Conversely, if man's reception, understanding and love of truth and good,
revealed to him in the Word, were not human but Divine, would it be possible for
man to love the Lord without that love being a species of self love?
I know that you will say now that I am confounding the Divine from the
Divine with the Infinite Divine itself, or life from the only Life with that
Life itself. On the other hand it seems to me that the way you use the word
Divine for a regenerated man, and for everything created from the Divine, is
more apt to confuse your readers and hearers and make them lose sense of the
distinction between the Divine and the human.
In reply to my supposition that your use of expressions like
"essentially and purely Divine", applied to things created human by
the Lord, is the main cause of the non understanding of your position that you
find in others, who do not use the terms in the sense you do, but with
essentially and purely Divine mean the things that belong to the Divine itself,
the Lord and the Word, you say that "they are not aware of the cognition
out of the Third Testament that not only the Divine in itself is called Divine,
but that also that which is from the Divine down to the very last of creation is
called Divine".
I think I can claim to have a fairly wide knowledge of what is said in
the Final Testament of the Lord to men, but from this knowledge I cannot
subscribe to the above statement of yours. 93
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER
While all that proceeds from the Divine — Life, Good, Truth — is
Divine and is called so, the created things that receive the proceeding Divine
are not called Divine. On the contrary created things are always carefully
distinguished from the Divine that creates them.
In this connection I would refer to DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM 59, where it
is said that "Although the Divine is in all things and each of the created
universe, still there is nothing of the Divine itself in their esse; for the
created universe is not God but from God; and because it is from God His image
is in it, as man's image in a mirror, in which indeed the man appears, but still
there is nothing of the man in it".
The same teaching is contained in DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM 283. You say
that a regenerated man is Divine, and is so called. I cannot recollect a single
statement that says so, or gives any real basis for thinking so. I know you are
familiar with n. 1906 of the ARCANA, where we are taught so much and so
illuminatingly about remains in man's natural mind. If anything in created man
could be called Divine, it would seem these remains would be worthy of the name;
they undoubtedly are from the Lord, implanted in man, celestial and spiritual
remains in the natural, by means of which a man can receive spiritual truth or
faith. But there it is said that these remains are not Divine but human.
I have expressed myself so fully regarding my understanding of what we
are taught about the natural mind and its reformation, because that will show
you clearly the reason why I cannot see with you when you say that "The
genuine Doctrine of the Church, being spiritual out of celestial origin, is born
from that regenerated Divine human being in the living Church".
This it seems to me, implies that a regenerated man is rationally
conscious on the spiritual degree of the mind itself,
and like the spiritual angels has light
from the celestial heaven, and that what he so sees is the genuine truth.
A regenerate man would then have a genuine spiritual rational, and in its light
he would see truths that are hidden in the letter of the Divine Doctrine itself,
and in this way be able to draw out these hidden truths, thus giving birth to
the Doctrine of genuine truth.
94 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE
According
to my reading of the Final Testament, man so long as he lives in the natural
world is conscious only
If the remains of good in his natural mind are awakened to activity by
the vision of spiritual life that the Word has given him, a new intellectual
will is formed in his mind to live in accordance with these truths; thereby he
is led into struggle against the inherited and acquired evils, which he must
overcome as by his own efforts. It is the Lord's truth and good in his
understanding and will that gives him victory, but in the beginning of
regeneration man does not know this because he feels the truth and good that he
has from the Lord in the Word as his own.
As regeneration proceeds the desire for good life will cause the man to
read the Word with constantly increasing desire for understanding its truths
that lead to good, and he will see the truths in a more interior way.
But as man's rational understanding is gradually developed by knowledge
and observations of natural things as well as by instruction from the Lord in
the Word, he at first understands the teaching of the Word naturally; and to his
knowledge and understanding of the Word fallacies adhere, which cause that the
truths are not truths.
Still, these appearances of
truth in the man's understanding, if they are not confirmed, will serve
for the growth of his rational, and as he continues to search for the truths of
the Lord in the Word for the sake of the good. ~ of life, his understanding will
be more and more enlightened by the spirit of the Lord; the fallacies will
disappear, and his understanding of the Word become more and more genuine.
The Doctrine of the Church is thus conceived in man by the spirit of the
Lord's Divine Human, when man in humility goes to the Word to be instructed.
It is born in him from the Lord, first as an understanding of truth in
its most general aspects as it is accommodated to the simple. This first
rational understanding born in man bv the Lord is the beginning of the human
from 95
REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN the
Lord's Divine Human, the Doctrine of the Church in man in that state; and as man
subordinates his natural mind to the light from the spiritual truths of the
Word, submitting to its teaching for the love of good, the inner degrees of the
mind open more and more widely giving passage to the influx from the Lord
through them into the natural, bringing it into a different state. The human
rational thus grows, increases in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and
man. A new proprium from the Lord is born in man which can receive from the Lord
a spiritual doctrine that has its origin in the Lord's love for man and carries
His love within it.
The human understanding of the Divine Truth and the human reception of
Divine Good, that is the new will and understanding so created by the Lord, is
the new proprium of man, the receptacle of the Divine, but not Divine itself. ALBERT
BJORCK P.S.
After I had finished this letter your note referring to A. C. 10675 and
10703 came. I have looked them up in my edition of the ARCANA and found that I
had marked both in former readings in connection with the subject before us, and
had made annotations of them, and also of 10702, which contains the same
teaching.
It seems to me that what is said there harmonizes with, and gives support
to, the position I have tried to express in the THREE STUDIES and in the present
letter. Dear
Mr. Pitcairn.
96 our
positions, and the cause of that difference should become quite clear.
Before writing it I have given careful thought to the several
passages in the Final Testament that you and Mr. Pfeiffer have referred
to, and I can only say that, as far as I am able to understand, they all
harmonize better with my position than with yours.
I dare hope that the position I have come to is equally with yours the
result of an earnest desire to understand the Divine Truth involved in the
literal sense for the sake of the truth and the good it teaches.
Besides the references given in the letter I would also call your
attention to ARCANA CELESTIA 10057, where the teaching concerning man's
regeneration is so plainly given, and also n. 10028, which gives much light on
the Doctrine of the Church.
ALBERT BJORCK REV.
ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK Dear
Mr. Bjorck. Please
accept my thanks for your kind reply to my several letters.
I note that you still object to calling Divine not only the Divine in
itself but also that which is from the Divine. In your letter to Mr. Pitcairn of
April 28th you say: "The power to cooperate with the Lord.... belongs to
man as a created being, and can never become Divine because it is from the
Divine". And in your present letter to me you say: "I cannot recollect
a single statement that says, or gives any real basis for thinking, that a
regenerated man is called Divine". In my last letters I have quoted
repeatedly several such statements. In
ARCANA CELESTIA 9338 we read: "For Heaven is nothing else than Divine Truth
proceeding from the Lord's Divine Good; the Angels there are recipients of truth
in good, and in so far as they receive this, so far they make Heaven. And, which
is an arcanum, the Lord does not dwell with an Angel except in His Own with him.
In like manner with man, for the Divine must be in what is Divine, not in the
proprium of anyone. This is meant by the words 97
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK of
the Lord concerning the union of Himself with those who are in the good of love,
in John: 'In that day ye shall know that I am in the Father, and ye in Me, and I
in you. He that loveth Me keepeth My word, and We will come unto him, and make a
dwelling with him' (14 : 20, 23); and in another place: 'The glory which Thou
hast given Me I have given them; that they may be one, as We are
You say: "While all that proceeds from the Divine — Life, Good,
Truth — is Divine and is called so, the created things that receive the
proceeding Divine are not called
98 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE Divine.
On the contrary created things are always carefully distinguished from the
Divine that creates them". To this it
must be
answered that
here the
distinction is
made between the Creator who is Life in itself, and created nature which
in itself is deprived of life and which, apart from influx, therefore is dead in
itself. This is the well known truth to which you here refer. But since the
essence of the truly human of man is the problem, and the conjunction of man
with the Lord, it seems to me it is beside the point to refer to that truth. For
the human of man is not simply a part of created dead nature, apart from all
influx; it is indeed a finite created being, but it is human only by virtue of
the Divine influx; apart from that influx the human of it
would utterly be destroyed
and then indeed
become simply a part of created dead nature. From the words of
If you say: "The power to cooperate with the Lord belongs to man as
a created being, and can never become Divine because it is from the
Divine", it seems that you 99
REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK
difference
between the Uncreated which is Life in itself and the created which is dead in
itself. But it seems that in making this conclusion you were lead into a
contradiction with the truth that the Divine can dwell only in what is Divine.
From the words of the Lord quoted above: "Ye in Me and I in you", and
"That I may be in them", and "We will come unto him and make a
dwelling with him", it is plain that that in which the Lord dwells is that
which receives Him; .and it is that which receives Him which cooperates with
Him. With the words "the Divine can dwell only in that which is
Divine", it is thus plainly said that that which must receive the Lord, can
receive Him only if it is Divine, and that that which must cooperate with the
Lord, can cooperate with Him only if it is Divine. And indeed it is a
self-evident truth that man from his proprium can never receive the Lord and can
never cooperate with the Lord. He can indeed, after he has been born anew,
cooperate from his celestial proprium, but this is of the Lord alone with man.
Only that which is from the Lord with man can receive the Lord and cooperate
with the Lord. The application of the truth concerning the difference between
the Uncreated which is Life and the created which is dead to the problem of the
power to cooperate with the Lord, in such a way as to conclude that the power to
cooperate can never become Divine, would lead to the conclusion ' that that
which is dead can cooperate with the Lord. Another
passage in which the human of man after regeneration is called Divine is the n.
3490 of the ARCANA, to which
Mr. Pitcairn
drew your
attention: "In
the representative sense the regeneration of man as to his natural is
also here treated of, in which sense Esau is the good of the natural, and Jacob
the truth thereof, and yet both Divine".
That there is such a difference in the use of the term Divine in the
letter of the Word should not surprise or
100 of
DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM, which you quote, the subject is an entirely different
one. The teaching there is that there is nothing of tine Divine in itself in the
Esse of created things (nihil Divini in se in illorum Esse); which is a plain
truth, because otherwise there
would be more than one God. There is indeed nothing of the Divine in itself in
the esse of the human of man, and yet it is plain that after regeneration, by
virtue of the Divine influx, the human of man in which the Lord dwells is Divine
and is called Divine, for the Divine can dwell only in that which is Divine.
Similarly it is not difficult to see that in ARCANA CELESTIA, n. 1906,
quoted by you, where it is said that "the remains with man are not Divine
but human", the difference is pointed out between the Remains of the Lord
which were states of Life itself, and the Remains of man which are only
conceivable together with a receiving vessel. This appears from the text itself:
"But the Remains with the Lord were all Divine states, ... they are not to
be compared with the Remains with man, for these are not Divine but human".
From this it appears that the term Divine is here used in the specific sense of
the Divine Life in itself. But that the human Remains are truly Divine and must
necessarily be called so, if the term is used in the sense "from the
Divine", appears from the following consideration: Of the remains with man
we read that "they
|
|
