Scientific discovery of Spiritual Laws given in Rational Scientific Revelations


PREVIOUS PAGES

INDEX

 

 

51                REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER  

 

REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER

  April 15th 1932.

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer.

  In your letter to me you say that the truth, that the natural degree of the mind regarded in itself is continuous, has been fully realized in your position as propounded in DE HEMELSCHE LEER.

  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                 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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 came to them not through interior perception of influx of life from Him, but by teaching from without to the beginning of understanding, meeting with and received by the remains of good from the Lord in their interior degree. The remains of innocence in their interior degree could by the teaching be preserved, and with some that degree could be opened letting down the light of the heaven to their  external  or  natural  degree in ritualistic worship representing their interior reception of light.

  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 was ruled directly from their internal perception. The men of the Churches of Noah and descendants had the beginning of an external rational which made it possible for them to receive and be guided by teaching from without, which teaching could preserve the remains of innocence

 

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, can the Lord come and be received in His Divine Human.

  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 means we have, and we have to do the best we can with them. We are apt to think of the three distinct heavens as on three different horizontal planes, one above the other, with no other connection than transmitting and receiving

 

54         A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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.

  ALBERT BJORCK

  REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  April 19th 1932.

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

  As you point out in your letter, the subject of the Doctrine of the Church has many phases, and thus may be viewed in different series. A comparison with Heaven brings this out. Heaven and the Church may be seen as the Body of the Lord, as the Wife of the Lord, as to the Divine of the Lord which makes Heaven, or as to the Angels which constitute it. The Heavens to eternity in a kind of infinity are present before the Lord, while only the actual Heavens are visible to Angels; and the same applies to Doctrine.

  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

  April 28th 1932.

Dear Mr. Pitcairn.

  I wish to thank you for your letter received some days ago. In DE HEMELSCHE LEER, Second Fasc. p. 125, occurs the following statement: "That the reception with the nonregenerate man is not Divine certainly does not in any way do away with the fact that the reception with the regenerated man is Divine". The sentence I have quoted 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.

  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

  May 1st 1932.

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer.

  After reading the proofs you recently sent me, * the meaning of some things you say in the First Fascicle has been clearer in my mind; but there are still things said that I can only account for by a failing on my part to understand your meaning, or as the result of an error on your part.

  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 as a whole, or any one regenerating man, may have at any given time, can at best be what corresponds to the Human Divine with the Lord.

  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, some others' more internal, according to the measure in which their rational has been inspired. So viewed one may speak of a natural, a spiritual, and a celestial Church, bul they will all be of the same Church on earth, led by the same essential Doctrine, or their reception of good and

 

58         A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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 express that vision, to us seems external, he therefore has not progressed far in regeneration. Every man whose regeneration has begun is in one sense in truth from good, for no one is in truth unless remains of good from the Lord in his will have taken truth from the Word and joined that truth to itself, thus giving that good form in the natural man. Therefore I cannot think of the Church in the future divided as Natural, Spiritual, and Celestial, each with its own Doctrine.

  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 a Doctrine of the Church, which is purely Divine as to origin, and also of purely Divine essence even as to your reception of it. I cannot believe that you really mean that, but the way you express yourself in many places would bring that meaning to most of your readers. In the First Fascicle, p.  13, Mr.  Groeneveld says;  "Then will this new Magazine be the place where the Lord will speak openly to us". You have left that standing without any comment.

  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, an evil one if the Lord's truths are not received, giving growth and form to the seeds of good from Life itself; but a heavenly one, if the Lord's truth is received. The human proprium with its evil tendencies can never be cast  out,  only  subjugated  and moved to the circumference.

  The Divine Human has no human father, but the Divine itself is its Father. Therefore the Divine seed grew in the Lord as He as a man put off the human from the mother,  and He became gradually Human Divine and finally Divine Human, so superadducing a Divine  Natural Human to the Divine Human in the heavens. In this Divine Human the Word became flesh, and in it the infinite Life of Love dwells. The Lord our God is God Man and Man God.

  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 man. It is necessary as a receptacle in and through which -the Divine can come and make the external at one with the good from the Lord implanted in the soul. Therefore the genealogy in Matthew commences with Abraham, who represents the Divine Itself in the Lord's Human, and in man the Divine influx into the human affection for Divine Truth, descending through the patriarchs and kings; or the truths of the Word as given to the Church, until received by the Church in the state represented by Mary it becomes the Word made flesh, the Son of Man, or Divine Truth in an external natural form.

  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

  REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  May 2nd 1932.

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

  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

 

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 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

 

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

  May 5th 1932.

Dear Mr. Pitcairn.

  Thank you for replying so promptly to my last letter. The numbers in the different parts of the Latin Word that you refer to in support of the position that the reception in man of the Divine is itself Divine, are all important for a.   true   understanding  of  the  relation  between  the  Divine and the human. But I cannot see that they are in opposi-

 

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

  REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  May 12th 1932.

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

  Your last letter concerning man as a receptacle involves the whole Doctrine of regeneration, a subject which is most profound, and of which at present we are only acquainted with the most general things; and as we are only in generals it is difficult to see the question in clear light.

 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

  64                A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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 CELESTIA, 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

 

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

  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

 

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

  May 14th 1932.

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

  Please accept my thanks for your several letters in reply to the proofs which I sent you and to my letter of March 16th. I hope to come back on the different points raised by you in detail, but I should like to-day to make only the following few remarks with regard to what seems to me an obvious misunderstanding of our position. There is the Divine in itself, which is infinite, and there is the Divine in the Heavens and in the Church, which, though it is truly Divine, nevertheless is not infinite. Practically the whole of your last letter seems to be based on the opinion that in our position we regard the Doctrine of the Church as infinite, which by no means is the case. For instance, you say that "the Doctrine of the Church . . . can at best be what corresponds to the Human Divine with the Lord". This is what we have always held. We have never said that the Doctrine of the Church is the Divine Human in itself, or that it is infinite. Does the Word not teach in many places that that which corresponds to the Divine is also Divine? It is just by virtue of this correspondence that finite things can be Divine. This is illustrated by the law that as long as the body corresponds to the soul, it is sane and lives, but as soon as the correspondence ceases, it dies. And of the soul it is plainly said both that it corresponds to the Divine Human of the Lord and that it is Divine; and yet it is not infinite; it is not life, but only a  recipient  of  life.  Evil  and  false  things  can  never correspond to the Divine, except ex opposite; but the

 

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 you have not entirely lost sight of the difference between the infinite Divine Human in itself and the Divine in the Heavens and in the Church, which of course involves also the recipients  of the Divine.  Also the recipients, though finite, must be purely Divine, because the Lord can dwell only in His Own. Only in the measure in which also the recipients are from the Lord, can there be conjunction with the Lord.

  That you seem not to make this distinction I take from your letter of April 28th to the Rev. Theodore Pitcairn, in 'which you say: "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".  And yet in the ARCANA CELESTIA 5116 we read: "They who attribute all things to the Divine can see . . . that the Divine is in each thing in nature". In your last letter to Mr. Pitcairn, in answering to what he had written to you on the difference between the Divine in itself and the Divine in Heaven and the Church, you throw the whole problem again on the fact that man is not life but a recipient of life; but it is obvious that this has never been denied by us, and our position is in no way in opposition to this law. To bring this in here again would draw the attention entirely away from the real issue, namely, that the Lord with man can dwell only in what is His Own. 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. It seems to me that you must admit that in this connection the truth that Angels and men are not life but only recipients of life,  is  altogether  irrelevant;  for  both  Angels  a.nd  evil spirits alike are only recipients, and yet the reception with Angels is Divine, and with evil spirits it is not Divine. The case becomes perfectly clear with regard to the soul — as I said before — of which it is plainly taught that it is

68                 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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).

  ERNST PFEIFFER

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 would have been no need for the Lord to be born man. The angelic heavens and the Church together would gradually have grown into a Human Divine man.

  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 man had not been created with freedom to follow the impressions of his outward senses instead of that inner perception, a freedom which, as far as man's own consciousness is concerned, separates his life from any other man's and the Creator's, he would have been an automaton, without any choice of his own shadowing forth the Divine life in natural forms; and if life were withdrawn from the natural form, there would be no individualized spirit left,  but the spirit of man would return to his infinite Maker and disappear in Him.

  It is the separation from Life itself which makes man a being with individual spiritual life for ever. It is the Creator's gift to man, but though given by the Divine Life and from it, it is human life, not Divine. And as it is through this separateness of human life from the Divine that man can receive or reject, understand and follow the truths the Lord makes known to his natural mind in the Word, or go his own way in disobedience to them, man's reception of these truths is human, not Divine.

  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 never becomes the soul; and however closely the created human may correspond to the Divine, it never becomes the Divine.  It  remains  human  even  when  reformed  and regenerated into an image and likeness of the Divine Human.

  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.

  ALBERT BJORCK

 

72      A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

  REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  May 27th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

  Many thanks for your kind letter of May 20th, which duly came to hand. You write in both your last letters that you fully agree that the Doctrine of the Church is Divine, but you deny that the reception of the Doctrine of- the Church is Divine. It seems evident from the particulars of your letters that in speaking of the Doctrine of the Church you admit that the Doctrine of the Church is not identical with the Divine Doctrine in itself or the Latin Word, though they are one by correspondence. The Doctrine of the Church can only come into existence by reception by the men of the Church. It is not possible to speak of the Doctrine of the Church before it has been received. Before reception it is the Divine Doctrine in itself. If therefore the reception would not be Divine, the Doctrine of the Church could not be Divine either.

  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 a use. But in the measure man becomes regenerated also the  use  of  that  gift  with  man becomes Divine. By regeneration man is conceived anew and born anew, from the Lord; the Lord then is his Father, and the Church his Mother. He is conceived from a new seed, which is Divine (see A. C. 1438).

  Now it is the human with man, or his natural mind, which must be regenerated. By regeneration the human of man comes into correspondence with the soul. It is utterly irrelevant to say that the human always remains human and never becomes Divine, just as the body does not become the soul, or the earth does not become the sun. Of course not, but .by regeneration it comes into. correspondence and thereby becomes Divine from the Lord. The Divine Human itself of the Lord did not become identical with the Divine Itself of the Lord; but they became one by correspondence. It is the same with man, for the regeneration of man is an image of the glorification of the Lord.

  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 man can be regenerated, so that the human of men by regeneration can become Divine. The Coming of the Lord into the Flesh had no other purpose. This the Lord has expressed in John 6 : 54: "Whoso eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood hath eternal life". Of course that human of man is not infinitely Divine as the Divine Human itself, nor is it Life itself as the Divine Human is, but nevertheless it is Divine. It is not life but it has life. Therefore we read that the Divine of the Lord makes Heaven and the Church, it makes the Angel and it makes

 

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 essence of the reception is denied, there is no difference between Heaven and hell, between a living Church and a dead church, between an Angel-man and a devil-man; there is no regeneration and no Holy Spirit; for the Holy Spirit without a Divine reception is not given. It has no meaning to speak of "the truths and goods in man" and to say that they are Divine, if the Divine of the reception is denied, for before reception truths and goods are not in man but outside of man. Please, enter upon this crucial point.

  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 man. Please, I pray you, will you enter upon this crucial point which alone makes the real issue.

 

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 are Divine from the Lord, they are pure; so is the living genuine Church, the Bride, the Holy City (AP. 21 : 27), a man as far as his regeneration goes; this Divine, this purity, is there by virtue of the reception; if it were not so, there would be no hells, and no unregenerate men; for as. far as the Lord is concerned, He wants all men to be pure, but they can only become pure, as far as the reception of the Lord's Life is pure; and there is nothing which is pure,  except the Divine.  What else is the  difference between Heaven and hell?

  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, or, which is the same, of the truth that the Lord with man can dwell only in His Own; or, which again is the same, of the truth that the Bride of the Lamb, and the Holy City, must be purely Divine.

  ERNST PFEIFFER

  P.S.  I  am enclosing proofs  of an address by Mr.

 

76                 CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

Groeneveld *, which, throws more light on the relation. between the Word and the Doctrine of the Church.

  REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER

  June 4th 1932. 

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

  REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  June 4th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

  Allow me to add the following to my last letter.

 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,

  * This address on the Ease and the Existere of the Doctrine will be published in the Fifth Fascicle.

 

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

  June 6th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

  Allow me to still add the following to my last two letters.

  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                 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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", nor of "a vision or an understanding which is true" unless it be the Lord's with man and thus Divine.  For man's proprium is altogether infernal and thus not in the least capable of "a genuine understanding" or of "a vision which is true". In so many places of your different letters you say that man's understanding of truth cannot be Divine, and yet you speak of "a genuine understanding of the Divine Truth", of "a vision which is true", and of "an understanding which is a true form of a true vision".

 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 same time it is said that the reception thereof is not Divine. For it is only by virtue of the reception that truths and goods are within man; apart from reception they are outside of man. The presence of truths and goods in man is always due to influx. All influx is according to reception. If then the reception is not Divine it is not possible that the influx or the result of the influx is Divine. The truths and goods within man are the result of influx. To say that the truths and goods in man are Divine and to say at the same time that the reception is not Divine, is a plain contradictio in adjecto. If you speak of "a genuine understanding

 

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 man and not of truth outside of man. In other words: In admitting that the Third Testament and the Doctrine of the New Church are two distinct things, and that both are Divine, you seem to have the idea that the Divine Truth of the Third Testament can be poured into the Church, so as to become there the Divine Doctrine of the Church, without the understanding of it being Divine, thus almost like water from a bottle into a glass. This I take from the first page of your letter of May 20th to me, in which you describe your understanding of our position and where you say that "the Divine Doctrine in the Word 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". But at the same time you say that mail's understanding of the Doctrine is not Divine. Man's understanding is the vessel into which the Divine Truth must flow if the Divine Truth in the Word is to become the Divine Truth in the Doctrine of the Church. Before reception in the understanding it is not possible to speak of the Doctrine of the Church. To say that the Divine Truth in the Word can be poured into the Church so as to become there the Divine Doctrine of the Church, while at the same time it is held that the understanding is not Divine, can be compared to pouring a noble wine into a filthy glass, and say that it is still a noble wine. In other words: If one denies that the reception or the understanding of the Divine Truth is Divine, it is not possible to say that the Doctrine of the Church is Divine.

  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 a certain understanding of Divine Truth, ... while this understanding of the Divine Truth is still very imperfect and even mixed with falsities". You thus seem to hold that "a genuine understanding of the Divine Truth" or "a vision which is true" can be mixed with falsities. But how can you then say that "the Doctrine of the Church, if it is from a genuine understanding of the Divine Truth, is Divine", if at the same time you say that "this genuine understanding" may be mixed with falsities? If the

80      A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

"genuine understanding" is mixed with falsities, then the Doctrine of .the Church is also mixed with falsities, for you plainly say that it is from that genuine understanding; but if the Doctrine of the Church is mixed with falsities, how then can it be Divine? You there also say: "It is still very imperfect".  If in speaking of its imperfection you refer to the fact that regeneration goes on to eternity, and that even of the highest Angel after the lapse of ages of ages it cannot be said that now he is perfect, of course then it is true that "a genuine understanding of the Divine Truth" with man is never perfect. But you will agree that a reference to this signification of the term "perfect" is here entirely beside the point in question. It would certainly be an error to ascribe to it that imperfection which is characteristic of all that is infernal; if the concept "perfect" or "imperfect" is used in this sense, it is evident that the Heavens and the Angels are perfect, while the hells and evil spirits are imperfect; man as far as he is regenerated, is perfect, but as far as he has not been regenerated, he is imperfect. And so also "a genuine understanding" cannot but be perfect; to say that it is mixed with falsities would be the same as to say that the thought of the Angels is mixed with falsities. "A genuine understanding of the Divine Truth in the Word", or, which is the same, the genuine Doctrine of the Church, can come forth only from that which is the Lord's with man, thus only from man as far as he is regenerated; it therefore is Divine and perfect, although it is true that it is capable of development ad infinitum. To say that the Doctrine of the Church, if it is from a genuine understanding, is Divine, but that nevertheless the understanding is imperfect and even mixed with falsities, is an obvious contradictio  in  adjecto;  for  all  influx is according to reception, and if the reception is not Divine, the result of the influx cannot possibly be Divine. The Doctrine of the Church, being the Divine Truth received within the Church, is a result of influx.

  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 an error. Man must cooperate with the Lord, and his reception of truth and good is from that cooperation". Here you thus plainly say that man's reception of truth and good is from his cooperation. But your purpose in saying this is to prove that the reception cannot be Divine. And yet I presume that you would admit that man cannot cooperate with the Lord from his proprium; that only the Lord with man can cooperate with the Lord; from which it follows that there can be no essential cooperation unless it  be  Divine.  But  then  you  continue:  "The  power  to cooperate with the Lord is given man by the Lord from creation. It belongs to 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 finite can never become the infinite". From the question whether the cooperation and thus the reception and understanding can be genuine, thus perfect, pure, and orderly, you now suddenly skip to an entirely different proposition, which is foreign to the problem and has nothing to do with it. You now no longer discuss the question whether man's understanding is genuine or not genuine, orderly or disorderly, pure or impure, perfect or imperfect, the Lord's with man or of man's proprium, which alone is the point at issue, but you now bring in the difference between that which is uncreated and that which is created, the infinite and the finite, Life in itself and that which receives Life, the human and the Divine. In my letter of May 14th already I have quoted a number of passages from which it appears that that which is from the Divine is also called Divine. So in the ARCANA CELESTIA 9338 we read: "The Divine must be in what is Divine; not in the proprium of anyone"; in the APOCALYPSE REVEALED 961: "That which is from God is not called God, but is called Divine"; and now I just have received a copy of Mr. Pitcairn's recent letter to you * in which he refers

  * See below p. 87. ED.

 

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 p. 188 of the Second Fascicle, where the same subject is treated of and explained. I trust that Mr. Pitcairn's letter will now be sufficient to show you the irrelevancy of the difference between the human and the Divine being here introduced. So in your letter of May 20th to me you say: "It seems to me that you . . . lose sight of . . . 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 with 'essentially and purely Divine' mean the things that belong to the Divine itself, the Lord and the Word". To this I cannot but reply 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 lasts of creation is called Divine. You then continue: "There is an instance of this in your last letter, where you say that the human body 'from creation as to 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 never becomes the soul; and however closely the created human may correspond to the Divine, it never becomes the Divine. It remains human even when reformed and regenerated". Of course the body does not become the soul, and the created does not become the uncreated, and the human does not become the Divine. But it is plain from the Third Testament that there is the Divine in itself which is uncreated and infinite, and there is  the  Divine  from  the  Divine.  You  have  ignored this fundamental truth. You then continue: "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

 

 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 can adhere to it", it seems evident that you have not yet given any consideration to this explicit teaching of the Latin Word, namely, that the Doctrine born in the Church is spiritual  out of celestial origin.  But this is the very corner-stone of the position of DE HEMELSCHE LEER. You seem to have the idea that the Divine Truth of the Third Testament can be transferred into the Church, so as to become the Divine Doctrine of the Church, without man's cooperation or reception being Divine; we hold that that transfer is only apparently from a direct cognizance of the letter of the Third Testament; in reality the Doctrine flows in from within from the Holy Spirit, and it is spiritual out of celestial origin in its birth in the human mind; thus it is Divine. The Lord is that Doctrine itself (A.E. 19).

  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 new man. The new man is altogether Divine. It is from the new man, and from the new man alone, that the genuine Doctrine of the Church is born. From this it is evident that no falsities can adhere to the genuine Doctrine of the Church. It is true that relatively few truths in this

 

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 a monstrous thought, which involves a denial of all possibility of regeneration and a denial of the Holy Spirit; and so also the fact that falsities keep adhering to the thoughts of the members of the Church does not indicate that they adhere to the genuine vision of the new man regenerated from the Lord, which is the Divine Doctrine of the Church, spiritual out of celestial origin. This is the plain teaching of the Latin Word (A. C. 2496).

  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 an assertion of superior regeneration. And this meaning seems to be supported by what is said in other places". It can only be due to a misunderstanding of the problem involved if these words make such an impression. The problem is a theoretical and abstract one; it has nothing to do with persons; to introduce personalities is disorderly.

 

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 see that the purely abstract statement of such an important and new truth should have given rise to the thought that it is born from a personal claim of superior regeneration.

  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

  REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  June 7th 1932. Dear Mr. Bjorck.

  Thank you for your last letter. This morning I came across a passage bearing on the subject, which I believe will make the matter clear to you, namely, ARCANA CELESTIA, n. 3490:  "Now in the internal sense the subject is the natural, how the Lord made it Divine in Himself. Esau is the good thereof and Jacob the truth. For when the Lord was in the world He made His whole Human Divine in Himself, both the interior which is the Rational, and the exterior which is the Natural, and also the very Corporeal; and this according to Divine Order, according. to which the Lord also makes new or regenerates man. And therefore 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, because all the good and truth which one who is regenerate has, is from the Lord". The above makes it clear that the good and truth which has been received in the will and understanding of the regenerate man is Divine, and hence that the reception is of the Lord and is therefore Divine;  this applying to both the interior human or rational and the exterior human or natural.

 

88                 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

  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

  June 15th 1932. 

Dear .Mr. Bjorck.

  I just came across the following passage in the ARCANA CELESTIA 10675: "With the intellectual of man it is like this: either it will consist of truths which are out of good, or of falsities which are out of evil; it cannot consist of both at the same time, for they are opposite; and it is the intellectual which receives the truths and is formed by the truths". And further in n. 10703: "It is said, light in the external of the Word from its internal, but it is understood, light in the external of man from his internal, when he reads it; for the Word does not shine from itself except before man who is in light from the internal; without him the Word is only a letter".            ERNST PFEIFFER

REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER

  June 22nd 1932. 

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer.

  At last I have been able to re-read and consider your recent letters. From what I have said in my pamphlet it

 

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 sense of the revelation, but each one of us bases his conception on apparently differing statements in the literal sense that we consider most important, and so we come to  different  conclusions.  We  are both  agreed that our understanding of the Word must be based on the literal sense, and I dare hope that we are both equally desirous and earnest in our endeavor to understand the teaching there given, and that we do so for the sake of the truth and for the good it teaches us. A free and open exchange of our differences of understanding, and on what they are founded on, should therefore be of benefit to us both and also a means of opening the doctrine which is one with the understanding a man of the Church has, or arrives at, of the Word.

  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, or will be in the New Church, each with its own doctrine, and these discretely different. Therefore there are also these three discrete degrees in each of the three heavens with no connection between them except by influx and correspondence.

  I cannot see that this agrees with the teaching. I am aware that there are passages, or at least one passage that I now recollect having read without being able to refer to work or number, which apparently teaches that. But the specific teaching in DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM 184—186

 

90                 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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 own. Man's consciousness on the natural degree is in other worlds his proprium.

  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 were part of his natural life.

  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 as the celestial degree was open, the influx of good and truth from the Lord were adjoined to the proprium so that they and the proprium appeared to be one.

  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 was lost, and they misinterpreted or falsified the revelation through nature. The equilibrium was destroyed, and with that human freedom. Since the flood the celestial and spiritual degrees of the mind are closed to man's consciousness, and he lives on the natural degree, that is from his proprium in which there are inherited tendencies to all evil. But in the natural degree of his mind, which is his proprium, there are also implanted remains of good from the Lord. By instruction in truths from the Word to the external memory knowledge of spiritual things can be given to the natural man, reason from this knowledge can be developed, and thus equilibrium restored. Man can act from the reason developed in his natural' mind by instruction in truths of the Word, or follow the tendencies to evil in the same mind. The remains of good from the Lord in his proprium can be kept alive and grow through this instruction, the influx from the Lord through the inner degrees can reach these remains in the natural, and cause an affection for good that man has consciousness of as his, that is, as belonging to his life here, and cause these affections to join with the truths from the Word that he has knowledge of and understands. Then the Lord vivifies man's proprium, reforming it, as man as of himself shuns the evils in his nature that he has knowledge of from the Word.

  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 or man. unless he in whom the Lord is with love and

 

92             A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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 own by living and loving them.

  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 men, and feel this love as his own proper love.

  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 on the natural degree of the mind. By instruction in truths of the Word his desire for knowledge can be led to embrace spiritual things; his natural understanding can be enlightened by the spiritual truths from the Lord that he knows and has some understanding of.

  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.

  REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN

  June 22nd 1932. 

Dear Mr. Pitcairn.

  I must ask your forgiveness for not having acknowledged your two letters before this. I have had three letters from Mr. Pfeiffer on the same subject, and I have endeavored to consider the contents in all five and express my views in one letter to both of you.* In this letter, of which I now send a copy to each one of you, I have tried to put my position in such a way that the difference in

  * See above DP. 88—95. ED.

 

96             A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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

  July 2nd 1932. 

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 one; that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them' (17 : 22, 26)". In this passage it is  literally  taught:   "The  Divine  must be  in  what  is Divine". That in man in which the Lord dwells is here plainly called Divine; thus plainly that in man which receives the Lord, for before reception the Lord does not dwell in man; thus not only the Divine which inflows, but also the human of man which receives. "Ye in Me and I in you". And indeed how could it be otherwise, in view of the law that all influx is according to reception. If the reception is not Divine, the influx also is not Divine. Moreover this passage says: "Heaven is nothing else than Divine Truth proceeding from the Lord's Divine Good". Thus Heaven is Divine; this is here plainly taught. But Heaven is not the Divine itself; it is a created thing which receives the Divine; it certainly is not Divine in that sense in which alone you will allow the use of this term. In your use of the terms "human" and "Divine" Heaven certainly is not "Divine" but "human". Whether you take an individual man and an individual Angel, or whether you take the Church and Heaven as a whole, it does not make the least difference; they remain finite and created and cannot be compared with the Divine Human of the Lord itself. So we read in ARCANA CELESTIA 6013: "The final end is that man should be a recipient of Divine good from the Lord in particular, such as Heaven is in general". Heaven is thus called a recipient, and Heaven is called Divine; and of man it is said that with him it is exactly the same, only in particular. And in n. 5115 we read: "Man is a Heaven in least form. .. . But it is especially the man who is being born anew, that is, who is being regenerated from the Lord, who is called a Heaven".

  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 n. 9338 of the ARCANA CELESTIA:  "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", it can be plain that this law of the difference between the Uncreated and the created, can here not have the application which you give to it. For the Lord can dwell with man only in man's human; if not, He would not dwell with him at all. The uncreated dwells in the created, the infinite in the finite; it has no sense to say that the uncreated dwells within the uncreated, or that the infinite dwells within the infinite. And whereas it is here said that the Lord can dwell only in His Own, and the Divine only in what is Divine, it therefore plainly follows that there is here an application of the term Divine to that which is finite and created. Moreover you agree that "all that proceeds from the Divine — Life, Good, Truth — is Divine and is called so"; but it ought also to be realized that it has no meaning to speak of "good and truth with man proceeding from the Lord" unless after reception; and that the influx and thus the quality of the good and truth proceeding is entirely according to reception. In     n. 4380 of the ARCANA we read: "Good and truth cannot be predicated without a subject, which is man".

  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 were induced to this conclusion by the thought of the

 

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 even disturb us. Nothing is more common than such apparent contradictions even in the Third Testament, from which it is evident that also the Latin Word without Doctrine is not understood. If then the full significance of the truth that "the Divine can dwell only in that which is Divine" is realized, it is not difficult to see that in n. 59

 

100             A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

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 are of the Lord alone with man" (A.C. 8, 576, 1050). Now may I ask you whether you think that it can seriously be maintained that that which is of the Lord alone may not be called Divine? By what other word then could it ever be designated, if not by the word Divine? And in the APOCALYPSE REVEALED 961 we literally read: "That which is from God is called Divine". We further read that the remains with man are "all things of innocence, all things of charity, all things of mercy, and all things of the truth of faith, which man has from the Lord" (A.C. 661) and in n.  561: "Remains are... in one word all states of good and truth". I do not believe that there can be any contention about the truth that that "which is of the Lord alone" is Divine and must be called Divine; nor does it seem necessary to quote passages which teach that "all states of good and truth" are Divine; they could be

 

INDEX

NEXT PAGES 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source pages

Authors: Leon James &  Diane Nahl Webmaster: I.J. Thompson