|
|
|
Selections From De
Hemelsche Leer (DHL) on the Divinity of Doctrine Fascicle IV, p. 37 ff www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409ss99/thompson/mscan10.html
A Correspondence On The Essence Of The Latin Word And The Divinity
Of The Doctrine Of The Church Rev. Ernst Pfeiffer To Rev. Albert Bjorck
There are three discrete degrees, even with man as long as he
lives in this world, of seeing truths that teach love to the neighbor and of
living accordingly, and there are three discrete degrees of seeing truths that
teach love to the Lord and of living accordingly. In your letter of March 3rd
you explicitly deny the existence of a discretely distinct natural Doctrine,
spiritual Doctrine, and celestial
Doctrine, although these are spoken of in the Third Testament itself
(cf. for instance A.R. 350), and moreover they can clearly be seen in the
comparative description in the ARCANA of the Adamic and the Noachic and the
Hebrew Churches. From our study of the difference between the natural and the
rational, ? which indeed as to their basis both belong to the natural degree of
the mind, ? we are led to hold that there are with man three discrete degrees
of Doctrine, and thus of doctrinals, cognitions, and scientifics. We readily
admit that these degrees are not in themselves discrete, but that they in
reality only appear to be discrete because they are discretely qualified by the
influx of the spiritual and the celestial degrees. But nevertheless, this
apparent discreteness is as real, as if it were really a substantial
discreteness, and there is no relation between these apparently discrete degrees but that of correspondence. Each of these three apparently discrete
degrees of the natural mind has its own discretely different doctrinals,
cognitions, and scientifics. According to our
understanding it is the interior natural that makes the man of the natural Church;
it is the exterior rational that makes the man of the spiritual Church; and it
is the interior rational that
makes the man
of the celestial Church.
According to this view it is thus plain that it is a qualification of the
natural degree of the mind into apparently discrete degrees, by the influx of
the spiritual and of
the celestial, that
makes the difference between the natural, spiritual,
and celestial Churches. For all of those
degrees, namely the interior
natural, the exterior rational, and the interior rational, as to their basic
essence, belong to the natural degree of the human mind. If this were not the
case it would not be necessary for man to be born first in the natural world. Here you may see how the teaching that the natural degree of the
human mind regarded in itself is continuous, but that there comes into
existence the appearance of discreteness by the influx of the spiritual and
celestial degrees, has fully been realized in our position. Regarded as to
their basis the interior natural, the exterior rational, and the interior
rational, form a continuous degree, because all of them belong to the natural
degree of the human mind; but through correspondence with the two higher
degrees, namely the spiritual and celestial, if these flow in, there is the
full appearance of discreteness. As long as an interior natural man lives in this world, he is
sensuously conscious only in the external of the interior natural; when he
leaves this world he becomes sensuously conscious in the internal of the
interior natural. As long as a spiritual man lives in this world, he is
sensuously conscious only in the external of the exterior rational; when he
leaves this world he becomes sensuously conscious in the internal of the
exterior rational. As long as a celestial man lives in this world he is
sensuously conscious only in the external of the interior rational; when he
leaves this world he becomes sensuously conscious in the internal of the
interior rational. And whereas, as I pointed out before, the external of even
the celestial man is discretely lower than the internal of the interior natural
man, it is quite plain why in one specific sense it is said in the number
quoted by you (A. 8443), that man compared with the Angels is in the lowest,
namely the sixth, degree. But this regards rather the full sensuously conscious enjoyment of
the different degrees of truths than the essential possession of the concepts
of the different degrees of truths. Therefore it is said in this specific sense that man cannot grasp the
higher degrees of truths. But on the other hand it would seem evident that the
doctrinals. cognitions. and scientifics of the Adamic man were discretely
higher than those of the Noachic man ? although this discreteness is not a discreteness
in itself but draws its origin from the influx of the two higher degrees ? and
likewise, in a general way, that the doctrinals, cognitions, and scientifics of
a celestial man are discretely higher than those of a spiritual man, and those
of a spiritual man discretely higher than those of a natural man. The Doctrine, doctrinals, cognitions, and scientifics of the
celestial man of the New Church will be discretely higher than those of the men
of all previous Churches except the Adamic. Those men could never grasp these
thoughts and concepts. Your statement, however, that "the highest rational
sight of spiritual truth that man in the world can ever acquire is on a lower
degree than that of the angels", would give to the Angels of the lowest
Heaven a higher rational insight of spiritual truth than to a spiritual or even
to a celestial man, a conclusion which, it seems to me, can hardly be
maintained, if one realizes that the spiritual man thinks out of the exterior
rational, and the celestial man out of the interior rational or out of the
rational proper (cf. A. C. 1914), while an Angel of the ultimate Heaven cannot
think in the rational proper at all but can only think in the interior natural,
receiving an unconscious influx of the rational. In using the words "the highest rational insight that man in
the world can ever acquire" you seem to indicate that you look for the
cause of the difference between the state of man as long as he lives in the
world and his state after death in the apparently discrete degrees of the
natural degree of the mind ? namely the different degrees of the rational which
can be distinguished ? while in reality the difference of these degrees is
valid for both Angels and men alike. The real difference between the states of
man before and after the death of the body, does not lie in the difference
between a lower and a higher rational, but between the external and the
internal of the different degrees of the rational. Both Angels and men alike are distinguished
by the different degrees of the rational; but man is sensuously conscious only
in the external of his respective degree, while the Angels are sensuously
conscious in the internal of their respective degree. To illustrate this still further: If a man has become a celestial
man this is by virtue of the fact that he has been introduced from the Lord
into the interior rational, or the rational proper. This is the highest degree
of rational insight for both men and Angels alike. Nevertheless as long as he
lives in this world he is sensuously conscious only in the external of it, and
the thoughts of the celestial Angels who are in the internal of if, exceed by
far his own thoughts, so that they cannot be compared. But it would be a wrong
conclusion to think that "his rational insight" is on a lower degree
than that of the Angels of the second or of the ultimate Heaven. He has truly
rational concepts which the lower Angels could never grasp, the Angels of the
lowest Heaven not being in the rational at all, but in the natural, and receiving
only an influx of the rational. And yet it is true that the light of truth of the Angels even of
the lowest Heaven in a certain sense exceeds his light, because they are
sensuously conscious in the internal of the interior natural which is discretely
higher than the external of the interior rational in which he is sensuously
conscious. Yet they are only in an interior natural light, while he is in a
truly rational light. I would say that this is confirmed by the fact that the
states of regeneration represented by the life of Isaac refer to things which
must occur as long as man lives in this world, and not only after the death of
the body. But nevertheless we have fully taken into account the great
importance and significance of your central argument on the part which the
natural degree plays in man's life, as long as he lives in this world. For the sake of illustration I would like to ask you what you
would think of the following formulation of the contents of the second
paragraph on page 68 of your pamphlet. I would suggest to have it read like
this: "The celestial sense of the Third Testament as it is with the Angels
in the Third Heaven, cannot be seen by man on earth, but it can be seen in a
corresponding form by man on earth, and that form is the form the Divine Truths
take in the external of the interior rational of a celestial man. And likewise,
the spiritual sense as it is with the Angels in the Second Heaven, cannot be
seen by man on earth, but it can be seen in a corresponding form by man on earth,
and that form is the form the Divine Truths take in the external of the
exterior rational of a spiritual man. And likewise, the spiritual-natural sense
as it is with the Angels in the First Heaven, cannot be seen by man on earth,
but it can be seen in a corresponding form by man on earth, and that form is
the form the Divine Truths take in the external of the interior natural of a
spiritual-natural man". In the third paragraph of the same page you say: "The
internal sense which men of the Church in the world can see is
one with their rational
understanding of the Word...", but exactly the same is
true of the Angels likewise, as you
pointed out yourself on page 48, line 2?10. This is thus not where the
difference lies of man's state before and after the death of the body. The
difference to us, as I pointed out before, would seem to lie in the fact that
as long as he lives in the world, man is sensuously conscious only in the
external of the different apparent degrees of the natural degree, while after
the death of the body he becomes sensuously conscious in the internal of those
degrees. This internal is the truly angelic spiritual or celestial itself, into
which man can never come as long as he lives in this world. But with both
Angels and men alike the discreteness of the different degrees of the mind is
dependent on the same qualification not of the two higher degrees but of the
natural degree into a very substantial though in itself only apparent
discreteness. I suppose you will have received the proofs of the article by Mr.
Groeneveld on The Coming of the Lord for
Conjunction with the Church, together with an elucidation which I
gave of this article [Third Fasc. pp. 86-108]. From
this, our position with regard to the discrete degrees of internal truths which
since the Incarnation of the Lord must become the basis for the thought of the
Church, may become quite clear. It seems to us that unless there would be a qualification
of the natural degree itself into a practically very real, though in itself
only apparent, discreteness, the difference between a celestial, a spiritual,
and a natural Church, would be non-essential. And therefore it seems to me that
your central point, namely on the great significance of the natural degree of
the mind in its relation to the two higher degrees, is the very stronghold of
our position; for the foundation of the celestial and spiritual degrees does
not lie in these degrees themselves, but in the natural degree, with both
Angels and men alike. I would also be grateful if you would let me know what you think
of what has been developed in these proofs concerning the ages of the human
race; namely that the Third Testament is essentially addressed to the old age
or celestial state of the human race, when it is prepared to enter into the
interior rational. I wonder how you think this compares with your thought that
the Third Testament is the Lord speaking to the human race when it has arrived
at the age of rationality (see page 70, paragraph one). The age of rationality
of which you speak, if I understand you correctly, is
that of early manhood (juventus), when the influx of the rational is being received
in the interior natural. ========= Rev. Theo. Pitcairn To Rev. Albert Bjorck
March 28th 1932. Dear Mr. Bjorck. Thank you for the pamphlet you sent me. I think it will perform an
important use if read extensively; it appears to me that it would be very
useful for the NEW CHURCH LIFE to publish it, and thus bring it to the
attention of the Church at large. One of your statements which does not appear in agreement with the
Latin Word is to the effect that the Doctrine of the Church is not Divine. In
the ARCANA CELESTIA 3712 we read: "Divine Doctrine is Divine Truth; and
Divine Truth is all the Word of the Lord. Divine Doctrine itself is the Word in
the supreme sense; ... from this Divine
Doctrine is the Word in the internal sense; ... Divine Doctrine is also the Word
in the literal sense; and whereas the literal sense contains within it the
internal sense, and this the supreme sense, and as the literal sense altogether
corresponds thereto, therefore also the Doctrine therefrom is Divine. But Divine Truth is the Divine Good appearing in Heaven before the
Angels and on earth before men, and although it is apparent, nevertheless it is
Divine Truth." The APOCALYPSE REVEALED, n. 157, like many other passages,
speaks of "Divine truths out of the Word" with men. In n. 193 in
reference to the New Church it says that "Divine Truth will be written on
their hearts". While n. 920, also referring to the New Church, says that
"All who are in the good of life and believe in the Lord, will there live
according to Divine truths, and will see them inwardly within themselves as an
eye sees objects". The APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED, n. 395, says that "The
white robes which were given them, signify the Divine Truth from the Lord with
them". From these and other passages it is clear that the genuine truths
from the Lord with the man of the Church are called Divine truths. Yet it is
also clear that there is an infinite difference between the Divine truths with
man and the Divine Truths that were with the Lord, or, to use the
representation in the above passage, between the garments of Angels and men and
the garments of the Lord. In the Latin Word the word "Divine" is most
frequently used in relation to the Divine Itself, and the Divine Human itself,
that is, to the Divine above the Heavens. Wherefore the word Divine as used in
the Church is usually synonymous with the Infinite. Yet the Divine which makes Heaven and the
Church, that is, the Divine goods and truths which have been received in the
Church, are also called Divine, although being in a finite receptacle they are
not infinite. (...) From the above it is evident that in the New Church there will be
a Doctrine of the natural Church, a Doctrine of the spiritual Church, and a
Doctrine of the celestial Church, and that these Doctrines are communicated
from Heaven out of the spiritual and the celestial sense of the Word. In your
STUDIES you have brought out passages which teach that while man lives in the
body, he thinks on the plane of the natural mind, and the natural mind is
continuous. While the natural mind is continuous, its form is totally qualified
by the internal degree that is opened, so that it is as it were discrete, as is
illustrated by the following comparison. The body of an animal, a tree, and a
stone, are all in the same degree, nevertheless due to the soul or atmosphere
which acts upon them and forms them, there is as it were a discrete degree of
difference between the body of an animal, a plant, and a stone. DE HEMELSCHE LEER teaches throughout that the literal sense of the
Doctrine .of the Church is natural, nevertheless the literal sense of the
Doctrine of the Church is totally qualified by the degree of the mind of the
Church which has been opened. Thus the literal sense of the Doctrine of the
natural Church, of the spiritual Church, and of the celestial Church, would
differ in a corresponding way as a stone, a tree, and an animal differ. While a man in the natural
world thinks in the natural, this does not mean that essentially a man who has
had the celestial degree of his mind opened, is not wiser than an Angel of the
natural Heaven; for a man in. Heaven, comes into the essentials of the things
he had on earth. It is evident that a man of the Most Ancient Church was
essentially wiser while living on earth, than a man of the Hebrew Church is in Heaven.
Your letter has just come to hand. You state: "The sentence I
have quoted from DE HEMELSCHE LEER, Second Fasc. p.
125, implies, or rather 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".
Your statement of the case would not be correct, for man's reception of them
could never be Divine. What DE HEMELSCHE LEER states is that "The
reception with the regenerate man is Divine, for the reason that the Lord
dwells in His Own with man". Thus it is not man's reception that is
Divine, but the Lord's reception with man that is Divine. In this connection the following number from the ARCANA CELESTIA
is of importance: "The case is like this: With no man is there any
understanding of truth and will of good, not even with those who were of the
Most Ancient Church. But when they become celestial it appears as if there were
a will of good and an understanding of truth with them, but it is of the only
Lord, as they also know, acknowledge, and perceive. So it is with the Angels
also; so much so that whoever does not know, acknowledge, and perceive that it
is so, has nothing whatever of an understanding of truth or of a will of good.
With every man and every Angel, even the most celestial, that which is his
proprium is nothing but falsity and evil; for it is known that the Heavens are
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 man, and gives out of His Own, and dwells in that" (n.
254). "As man as to his proprium is such, therefore out of the Lord's
Divine Mercy means have been given by which 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. 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 man, that is, the Lord works from what is His
Own in man both in firsts and lasts, and the Church is built out of the
Proprium of the Lord as lasts, as Eve was built out of the rib of Adam. Eve is
said to be the celestial proprium, which is built out of the Lord's Proprium.
As the Lord builds the celestial proprium of the Church out of His own Proprium
in the Church the celestial proprium is the Lord's and not man's. Thus the Lord dwells in His Own in man, and not in anything which
is man's, wherefore the essential of reception is the Lord's and not man's and
is hence Divine. Nevertheless the Lord provides that man feels the new proprium
from the Lord as if it were his own, and hence he may be in good and truth as
if from himself, but he must acknowledge that this is only an appearance, and
that all good and truth with man. are not the man's but are entirely the
Lord's, and hence are Divine. How the Proprium of the Lord is built into the celestial proprium,
(usually translated heavenly proprium), contains the deepest arcana which we
cannot enter into now. In n. 633 of the ARCANA COELESTIA, quoted in my last
letter, it says that "When men become celestial it appears as if there
were a will of good and an understanding of truth with them, but it is of the
only Lord. Man receives as it were a will of good and an understanding of
truth". The will of good and the
understanding of truth with the Church are the Lord's and are hence Divine, but
man is held in these by the Lord, as if they were the man's, hence man as it
were has a will of good and an understanding of truth; but man must acknowledge
that he has no will of good or understanding of truth, and that all will of
good and understanding of truth are wholly the Lord's and not at all man's; and
that it is of the mercy of the Lord, he can as it were have a will of good and
an understanding of truth, while he acknowledges that he does not have these,
but that they are the Lord's, and that whatever man has that is not the Lord's
is nothing but evil and falsity. If man had the least thing of the will of good
or the understanding of truth, then, as is said in 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. P. S. Since writing the above I found the following number in the
APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED bearing on the subject: "And I went unto the angel,
saying, give me the little book, signifies the faculty to perceive from the
Lord of what quality the Word is. The Lord gives to every man to perceive this,
but yet no one does perceive it unless he wishes as it were out of himself to
perceive it. There must be this reciprocity from the side of man in order that
he may receive the faculty to perceive the Word; unless 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". ==========Fascicle II, p. 112 ff Rev. Ernest Pfeiffer The Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg are the Word itself, or the
Divine Truth in lasts, in its fullness, holiness, and power. There is an
essential difference between the Word and the Doctrine of the Church. The Word
is the infinite Divine Doctrine itself. The Doctrine of the Church is not the
Word but out of the Word. We read in the ARCANA COELESTIA: "The Word in
the letter cannot be grasped except through Doctrine out of the Word, made by
one who is enlightened" (n. 10324). It is clear that such a Doctrine cannot but be from the Lord
alone, and is by no means a human production; how otherwise could it be a lamp
to the understanding when the Word is being read? Therefore it is also expressly said, "That the Doctrine is spiritual
out of celestial origin, but not out of rational
origin" (A. C.
2496, 2510, and
the whole of the twentieth chapter): and, "That the Lord is that
Doctrine itself" (A. C. 2859). The spiritual essence out of celestial
origin of the
genuine Doctrine has, in its essential particulars, been shown and
described in De Hemelsche Leer (First Fascicle, pp 14-17; 56-65; 97-125). Thus there is the Divine Doctrine, that is, the Word itself. The
Divine Doctrine in itself is above the Heavens and cannot be grasped by man or
Angel; it is infinite. And there is the Doctrine of the Church; it is a natural
Doctrine in a natural Church and in the last Heaven; it is a spiritual Doctrine
in a spiritual Church and in the middle Heaven; and it is a celestial Doctrine
in a celestial Church and in the highest Heaven. These three degrees of the
Doctrine of the Church correspond to
each other, and there is no relation between them but that of correspondence. From this it appears clearly that also the cognitions of the
different Doctrines differ entirely from each other, and that there is no
relation between them but that of correspondence. So, for instance, the
cognition of God: this cognition is different in the natural Heaven, different
in the spiritual Heaven, and different in the celestial Heaven. A cognition of
a higher Heaven cannot possibly be grasped by an Angel of a lower Heaven; and
this is so also with regard to the cognitions of the discrete degrees of the
Doctrine of the Church. Indeed, man comes into the full enjoyment of the
spiritual and the celestial only when he has put off his natural body, but this
has nothing to do with the opening of the three discrete degrees of the Church,
and thus of the Doctrine of the Church. That this opening has to take place during the life in the natural body, and that there is a natural Church, a spiritual Church, and a celestial Church, is well known out of the Third Testament; consequently that there is a natural Doctrine, a spiritual Doctrine, and a celestial Doctrine (cf. N. J. C. D. 107; A. R. 350). Compiled by Leon James See also the discussion in Theistic Psychology, Volume 4, Section 4.4.5.1 at: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/theistic/ch4.htm#divinity-doctrine Back to Leon James Full Text Articles: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy/leonarticles.html
|
|