Scientific discovery of Spiritual Laws given in Rational Scientific Revelations


PREVIOUS PAGES

 

INDEX

 

 

101                REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

multiplied indefinitely; moreover you have yourself expressed agreement that "all that proceeds from the Divine — Life,  Good,  Truth — is  Divine and  is  called  so". From which it follows that the meaning of the term Divine in ARCANA CELESTIA 1906, "the remains with man are not Divine but human", is a quite specific one, which must first be understood, and that it is not possible to use it as a proof that genuine human states should not be called Divine.

  In DIVINE PROVIDENCE, n. 52, we read: "But it must be known that the Divine in itself is in the Lord, but that the Divine from itself is the Divine of the Lord in created things". It is indeed true that created things in themselves are not Divine; this is your argument; but the point is that the regenerated human of man is not merely a created thing in itself; it is a created thing into which the Lord continually inflows and in which He dwells in His Own. For this reason the regenerated human is of the Lord alone and thus Divine. As soon as man would ascribe the least of it to himself, he would immediately cast himself out of Heaven. The fact that in the Word itself the distinction is pointed out between the "Divine in itself" and the "Divine from itself", makes it quite plain that in passages where simply the word "Divine" is used, it ought to be discerned in which of the two senses it must be understood. If only the actual existence of this difference in the meaning of the term Divine is realized, there can be no doubt about the question in which one of the two senses it is used in the statement of the ARCANA, n. 1906, that "Remains with man are not Divine but human". The difference of the two meanings becomes quite evident from their respective opposites. The opposite of the primary meaning, which alone you admit, is indeed the human; but the opposite of the derivative meaning, in which the term has been used by us, is that which is of man's old proprium, thus disorderly and infernal.

  If you say: "It seems to me that the way you use the word Divine for a regenerated man ... is apt to confuse your readers and make them lose sense of the distinction between the Divine and the human", I must reply what I have said in my previous letter, namely, that whereas the only issue is the difference between that which is the

 

102             A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

Lord's with man and that which is of man's infernal proprium, or between that which from the Lord with man is holy, orderly, genuine, pure, and perfect and that which from man's proprium is infernal, disorderly, not genuine, impure, and imperfect, it is surprising to see the reader skip to an entirely different proposition, which is foreign to the problem, namely the difference between that which is Uncreated, Infinite, and Divine in itself, and that which is created, finite, and human. And I must repeat that the skipping to this other issue is only possible because the reader is ignorant of the cognition out of the Latin Testament that not only the Divine in itself is called Divine, but also that which is from the Divine, by which of course I did not mean a created thing apart from influx, but the Divine in created things (cf. D.P. 52). If it were not that from this ignorance the reader with the term "Divine" always connects the concept of the Uncreated and the Infinite, he could know from a simple reading of the articles published in DE HEMELSCHE LEER that in speaking of the understanding and reception of the Doctrine being Divine, we never have meant to say that it is uncreated an-d infinite. And similarly it seems that you consider it necessary to  draw our attention to the teaching that "though the reformed and vivified proprium is from the Lord's proprium, it is still man's and he feels it as his own proper life, and so forth, A.C. 252; D.L.W. 113—118; A.C. 1937, 2883". The articles published in DE HEMELSCHE LEER contain no single word which is in opposition with this teaching; on the contrary, from a simple reading it can be evident that it is fundamental to all our thought, and self-evident, and self-understood. It is the leading idea of DE HEMELSCHE LEER that it is not the Latin Word in itself that makes the Church, but the understanding of that Word or the reception of it by the Church as from itself, if this reception by regeneration is Divine from the Lord (S.S. 76—79). It is our leading thought that it is impossible to speak of the Doctrine of the Church unless by virtue of the reception as of one's self; but you advocate the idea of a Divine Doctrine of the Church while at the same time you hold that the reception of it is marred by adhering falsities. In my previous letter I have already pointed out that in view of the law that all influx-is ac-

 

103             REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

cording to reception, the statement that "the Doctrine of •the Church is Divine" loses all its meaning, if at .the same time it is held that the reception of it is not Divine. I note, however, that while in your previous letters you spoke of falsities adhering to the reception and understanding of the Divine Doctrine of the Church, your last letter does not contain any such remarks; on the contrary you yourself now bring forward confirmatory passages to prove that very thing which is alone essential in our position, namely, that "the new man is truly human from the Lord", that his new proprium "is from the Lord's proprium, and that it is called angelic or heavenly". These remarks of yours now bring us for the first time to the real issue. The essence of the real issue can only be seen if it is seen in the difference between "the celestial and angelic proprium which is from the Lord and the infernal and diabolical proprium which is from one's self" (A.C. 252, the number quoted by you in this connection). There should now be no further difficulty for our mutual understanding, if only you will admit that no evils and falsities can ever adhere to this "celestial and angelic proprium" which is "truly human from the Lord" and "from the Lord's own proprium".

  Even if, in spite of the preceding considerations, you would still insist on using the term "Divine" only to denote that which is uncreated and infinite — as the Divine Human of the Lord is uncreated and infinite — it makes no difference with regard to what is the real issue. Although according to my understanding it is contrary to .the use which the Latin Word itself makes of these terms, and although it therefore necessarily takes away from the full integrity and clearness of the argument, in order to meet your difficulty I would suggest that in all those passages in our articles where the term Divine is used in such a way that you object, instead of "Divine" you simply read "of the Lord alone", or "celestial and angelic", or "truly human", or "orderly, genuine, perfect, pure, and holy".  If with  this interchangement of terms you can agree with our position, this is essentially all we want.

 With this in mind, may I now return to those three points of my last letter, which I consider essential for the understanding of the relation between the Third Testament and the Doctrine of the New Church:

 

104            A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

  1.   The Divine of the Third Testament in itself alone is not sufficient to redeem and save the human race and to build the New Church. Without that in man which is of the Lord alone, his truly human, orderly, genuine, perfect, pure, and holy, new-born proprium, whereby the Divine of the Third Testament is transferred from without man to within man, so as to become the Divine Doctrine of the Church — for you allow the use of the term Divine in connection with the Doctrine of the Church — the Word of the Third Testament remains closed and not understood; there is no Church and no Salvation; the Second Coming the Lord has made in the Third Testament is still of no avail.

  2.   That in man which is of the Lord alone, 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 of the Lord alone, he is altogether truly human, orderly, genuine, perfect — although, of course, not perfect in the infinite sense — pure, and holy. 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, and so forth; please, look up the rest in my previous letter.

  In all the places in these three points where originally the term "Divine" occurred in application to the man of the Church, I have now replaced it by the terms "of the Lord alone", "holy", and so forth. It is your position as developed in your letter to Mr. Pitcairn of April 14th, that the Doctrine of the New Church — of which you admit that it ought to be distinguished from the Latin Word — is Divine; you even say that "in a very real sense it is the Coming of the Lord to the Church" (p. 77 of your recent pamphlet); but at the same time you hold that the reception of it is "very imperfect" and the understanding of it "mixed with falsities". Keeping in mind the preceding considerations I now should like to make the following two remarks

 

105                REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

with regard to this position. FIRST: To anyone who is familiar with the law that all influx is according to reception (A.C. 5118; H.H. 569. and many other places), it must be plain that the statement "the Doctrine of the Church is Divine" loses all its meaning if at the same time it is held that the reception and understanding of it are mixed with evils and falsities. For there is no sense in speaking of the Doctrine of the Church before it is received and understood; before reception it is not the Doctrine of the Church but the Word itself. SECONDLY: Whereas in your last letter you yourself pointed to the new, angelic and celestial, proprium, that it is "truly human", and "of the Lord alone with man", and whereas it seems evident that if we are to speak of the genuine Doctrine of the Church, this is possible only if its reception is in that new, truly human proprium, which is of the Lord alone, and by no means if the reception is in the old infernal proprium, or even if this latter would have the least part in the reception, does it then not follow plainly and inevitably that if the statement "the Doctrine of the Church is Divine" is to have any meaning, it involves that the reception and understanding of it must be of the Lord alone with man, truly human, orderly, genuine, pure, and holy. It cannot but be free of all imperfections — in the finite sense — it must be absolutely free of all falsities. We are convinced that it would be more in agreement with the language of the Latin Word to say that it must be Divine; but in order to meet your difficulty we are willing to use these other terms. May I ask you to kindly give me an answer to these two points?

  In your letter to me of May 20th you say: "As the Doctrine of the Church 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. Thus yon say: "The Doctrine is Divine in men". How can it be "in men" unless it has passed through reception?  You say "it grows as from a seed". How can it "grow" and how can it be "a seed", if it is not a created thing? The infinite and the uncreated does not grow. And yet you call it Divine. According to our position you are perfectly right in doing so, but how can you harmonize it

 

106                A CORRESPONDENCE. THE DOCTRINE

 

with your own position, according to which that which is from the Divine may never be called Divine? It is true that  in  a supereminent  sense it may be said that the Divine Human of the Lord Himself, when He was on earth, "grew as from a seed". But now the Divine Human of the Lord is infinite, and though it is true that the genuine Doctrine and the seeds of it are from the Divine Human of the Lord, nevertheless these seeds in the Church are finite and by no means to be compared with the Infinite Seed from which the Divine Human grew, when the Lord was on earth. Thus this passage from your letter of May 20th in reality is an exact statement of the position propounded in the articles of DE HEMELSCHE LEER; but to us it appears in contradiction with everything else which you have argued in your letters.

  But from your own endeavour, as shown in your last letter, to demonstrate that the new-born man is of the Lord alone with man,  from the Lord's own proprium, truly human, "heavenly" — that is, celestial — and angelic, and from your statement that "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", I now believe that the difference between our positions with regard to this point is not so fundamental as it  first appeared. For the old position is that the Divine of the Latin Word in itself is sufficient to make that Word to be the real living Word not only in itself but also with the Church, while the new position is that also the Latin Word is really the Word with the Church only if it is received in a new will and a new understanding which is of the Lord alone with man, thus genuine, orderly, pure and holy. This position is held because it is believed that the teaching contained in the DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE, H. 77: "The Word is the Word according to the understanding of it with man, that is, as it is understood; if it is not understood, the Word is indeed called the Word, but with the man it is not the Word", must be applied to the three Testaments alike. That this is one of the essential differences in the two positions is plain from the fact that according to the one position it is held that such a reception and

 

107                REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

understanding which is of the Lord alone, perfectly orderly, pure, and holy, in the actual Church does never exist, but that it is always mixed with falsities; while according to the other it is held that as far as the reception and understanding is not free of falsities, thus not of the Lord alone, truly human, and holy, the Latin Word with man is not the Word. From certain remarks in your previous letters there was the appearance as if your thoughts were in the line of the old position; but from your last letter it seems to me that we agree as to this fundamental truth.

  However, at the same time I realize that the real difficulties will not he removed before we have come to an agreement with regard to the difference between the rational and the natural.. I hope to write you on this subject within two or three days.

                            ERNST PFEIFFER

REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  July 6th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Bjorok.

  As I have been very busy on my paper for the Assembly I have delayed answering your letter. In n. 2022 of the ARCANA CELESTIA we read: "To be to thee for a God. This signifies the Lord's Divine in Himself"; and in n. 2023: "And to thy seed after thee. This signifies the Divine thence derived with those who have faith in Him. . .. The Divine with those who have faith in Him is love and charity". It is well known that an Angel is nothing but a form of faith and charity from the Lord. In the above it is said their faith and charity which is with them from the Lord is Divine. It is well known that all that is from the proprium even with the Angels is nothing but evil and falsity; and the teaching is familiar that what is man's own cannot be commingled with what is the Lord's, for if they were, profanation would take place; hence the Lord miraculously separates what is of the Angels proprium from the faith and charity which make the Angelman, and which in the above are said to be Divine.

  What you say in your last letter would seem to exalt the innocence of ignorance or infancy of the human race

 

108                A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

above the innocence of wisdom of old age. That a celestial Church like the Most Ancient Church will again be raised up is taught in n. 10248 of the ARCANA: "I will set up the tent of David that is fallen and will build according to the days of the age (Amos 9 : II); by days of the age is meant the time when the Most Ancient Church was, which was celestial".

  Doctrine out of the Word with the celestial Church is spoken of in the following numbers: A.C. 3880, 4606, 9144; A.R. 350; A.E. 119, 355. In n. 6304 of the ARCANA it is said: "And He shall bring you back unto the land of your fathers.  This  signifies  to  the  state  of  both Ancient Churches".

  The whole of the story of Ishmael, Isaac, and Joseph makes it clear that the exterior and interior rational represented by these are not degrees of the natural mind, namely that mind the opening of which makes the first Heaven; but that the Ishmael rational makes the spiritual and the Isaac rational the celestial, as is evident from the following passages in the ARCANA: "Consequently the celestial are signified, or those who are of the celestial Church; for the seed out of Isaac is treated of" (n. 2085). "The spiritual become rational out of truth, but the celestial out of good; ... the former are meant by Ishmael" (n. 2078, also n. 2087, 2088). "Now as by Isaac is represented the Lord's Divine Rational, by him are also signified the celestial who are called heirs, and as by Ishmael is represented the Lord's merely human rational, by him are signified also the spiritual who are called sons" (n. 2661; see the whole number). "The rational is in a degree above the natural" (n. 3209; see the whole number). The above is also taught throughout  the story  of Isaac  and  Joseph.  "Joseph represents the external of the rational" (n. 4570; see the whole number). Joseph as the external of the rational is a discrete degree above Israel as the spiritual from the natural. As an intermediate between these two is Benjamin, the spiritual of the celestial which is intermediate between the spiritual from the internal natural, Israel, and the celestial  of  the  spiritual  which  is  the  external  of the rational, Joseph. From the above it is evident that if the New Church does not have the spiritual and celestial degrees actually opened, it will have neither the rational

 

109                REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN 

 

that is represented by Ishmael, nor that represented by Isaac, nor that by Joseph.

I am very much looking forward to seeing you..

                         THEODORE PITCAIRN

  REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN

  July 12th 1932. Dear 

Mr. Pitcairn.

  Thank you for your letter. I am also busy on my paper for the Assembly, and I want to get it completed before I attempt to make any comments on your understanding of the teaching in the ARCANA CELESTIA that you refer to. I will now only say that according to my understanding, the Most Ancient Churches after Adam, that is, Seth and those named in the Genealogy of the Lord as the Son of God down to Noah, were churches by virtue of, and according to, remains of perception of good and therefore of truth from the Lord in their natural life as men on earth. That perception was celestial remains in their natural mind. The churches of the Ancient Church down to Abraham that are named in the Genealogy were churches by virtue of remains of good through faith in the Word, through which they were instructed in truth as natural men. They are all representative churches by virtue of those remains, while the Israelitish Church only represented a church.

  The Church must come down in man's will and understanding on the natural plane of the mind. The Church and the heaven formed by men's reception of the Divine Word of the Lord's Second Coming are therefore celestial natural or spiritual-natural, and therefore also, although below the heavens of infancy and youth, churches and heavens in a fuller sense than the preceding ones, because more fully the result of the cooperation of the natural mind of man with the Lord, from a conscious effort on his own part to understand the Divine Truth and live according to it. So doing the man of the Church returns into the former states of youth and infancy, and can therefore progress to eternity ever nearer the Lord in innocent dependence on Him for all things, and yet retain the experience gained in his struggle against evil during regeneration as a man on earth to eternity.

 

110     A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

  I have felt like saying this much now, as I evidently have expressed myself poorly in my former letter, as you think what I said there would seem to show that I exalt the innocence of ignorance of infancy above the innocence of wisdom of old age.

  I shall be very glad indeed for the opportunity to have a good talk with you and Mr. Pfeiffer.

                            ALBERT BJORCK

  REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  July 9th 1932. Dear Mr. Bjorck.

  The difference between the rational and the natural, according to the teaching of the Latin Word as we understand it, is indeed fundamental to the new position. It has first been pointed out by Mr. Groeneveld on the basis of NINE QUESTIONS II, on pp. 38—43 of the first Fascicle of DE HEMELSCHE LEER, and a short statement of the view is given on pp. 40—43 of the Third Fascicle. It is there called: "One of the most interior and therefore also most hidden arguments in connection with the Doctrine of the Church", and it is there said that: "If one is able to understand this difference between the rational and the natural and their mutual relation, one has understood the proper core of the Doctrine of the Church" (Third Fascicle, p. 40).

  The essential difference between the rational and the natural and that they always are to be viewed as two distinct things, can be seen from the truth that the rational soul is from the father, while the natural is adjoined to it from the mother. Just as they are two things from a different origin, so they always remain distinct, the rational being within and the natural without. This truth is expressed for instance in the ARCANA CELESTIA, n. 3209, with the explicit words: "The rational is in a degree above the natural".

  Man's conscious life begins in the natural. The rational itself before and during regeneration is above his conscious mind. In these preparatory states he receives only an influx from the rational. The end in view, however, is that, with

 

111            REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

the help of this influx, he should wrestle his way through the whole of the natural, more and more interiorly, so as to come above it, and enter at last the rational proper, in which he ought to find his conscious life, while the natural ought to be below him as his servant. This end in view is attained when man has become truly celestial, after having passed through all the previous degrees of regeneration, which consist in a wrestling through the natural.

  This truth may be confirmed by the teaching that "the interior rational constitutes the degree in which the celestial Angels are, or in which the inmost or third Heaven is" (A.C. 5145); by the teaching that "the fathers of the Most Ancient Church, who had perception, thought out of the interior rational" (A.C. 1914); and by the teaching in n. 6240 of the ARCANA: "The intellectual of the internal man is called the rational, but the intellectual of the external man is called the natural; thus the rational is the internal and the natural the external; and they are amongst themselves most distinct. But a truly rational man is no one but he who is called the celestial man". From this explicit teaching it is plain that, if the concepts rational and natural are taken in their strictest sense, the intellectual of man before he  has become celestial is not rational but natural. The rational is present with him only by influx, while the celestial man alone is in the rational itself; for for the first time he has been elevated above the natural, after having accomplished the whole wrestling through it.

  In the Word this influx of the rational is simply called the rationality of man. And it is from this fact that it is common that in the beginning one speaks of the rational and may have an elaborate theory of the rational, without realizing in the least that it is only the influx of the rational into the natural in the first states of regeneration one is dealing with, while the rational itself has not yet been thought of as a distinct concept. So it is quite common to say that "the truths of the Writings are rational truths", while in reality these truths in the letter of the Third Testament as taken up by direct reading are nothing else  than  natural-rational  truths  which  correspond  to genuine rational truths. For in the letter of the Third Testament the rational has been laid down in the natural.

 

112                A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

Only with a celestial man they are truly rational truths. Everything which has been brought forward against the possibility of the exposition of an internal sense in the Latin Testament, is characterized by this mistaking of the influx of the rational into the natural for the rational proper which belongs only to the celestial man. This truth then and this fact account for the manner in which the position of DE HEMELSCHE LEER thus far has always been misunderstood and misrepresented; the opponents being in the idea  that  the  truths which a well-disposed reader gathers from a direct reading of the Latin Word are in themselves properly rational truths; while according to the new position it is held that only a celestial man can have properly rational truths, which is the explicit teaching of the Latin Word (see A.C. 6240, the number quoted above); and that therefore, according to the opening with the orderly means of the literal sense of the Latin Word, there is .a natural Doctrine of the Church which teaches the genuine literal sense of it, a spiritual Doctrine of the Church which teaches its spiritual sense, and a celestial Doctrine of the Church which teaches its celestial sense.

  From the reading of your letters and your pamphlet it appears that all your thought regarding these problems is governed by the teaching that as long as man lives in this world he can be conscious only in the natural degree of his mind and by no means in the two interior degrees as is the case with the Angels. This is indeed an important truth; but it has nothing to do with the problem of the difference between the consciousness of the natural and the spiritual man in the natural alone, and the consciousness of the celestial man for the first time in the rational itself; and it has thus nothing to do with the fact that there are three discrete degrees of Doctrine in the Church. This is an entirely different series of things, and the insisting upon bringing it here into application, cannot but have the result that the attention of the mind is arrested so that it sees nothing but the problem of the difference between the state of man before and after the death of the body, while its foremost interest ought to be concentrated upon the problem of the difference between the state of man before and after regeneration. In my letter of March 16th, which I wrote you as a result of my reading your

 

    REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK  113

 

pamphlet, I have already pointed this out in some detail; but in your reply you have not entered upon my argument.

  Your point which in all your thinking has been given such a predominant position, is this, that as long as man lives in this world he is conscious only on the natural degree of the mind. It is only after the death of the body that he can become conscious on the superior degrees. This is what you evidently mean by your repeated remark in your letters and in your pamphlet that "this is consistently and uniformly taught in all the works, and summed up and made clear to our rational understanding in DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM 256, 257" (see your letter to me of February 17th 1931).

  The basis of this teaching is that there are three discrete degrees of the human mind, the celestial, the spiritual, and the natural (D.L.W. 232); that the natural degree viewed in itself is continuous (D.L.W. 256); and that man, as long as he lives in the world, is in the natural degree, which is the last, and he then thinks, wills, speaks, and acts out of that degree (D.L.W. 238); and that the human wisdom, which is natural as long as man lives in the natural world, can by no means be elevated into angelic wisdom, which is of the superior degrees (D.L.W. 257 § 4).

  This teaching, if kept in its proper place, is indeed very important; and as to its meaning it is quite clear; it refers to the difference between the celestial, the spiritual, and the natural degrees of the mind, and it contains the outlook that the life and wisdom which awaits a regenerated man after death is so supereminent that no man can ever conceive of its glory. If the true meaning of what has been said in DE HEMELSCHE LEER on the difference between the  natural Doctrine, the spiritual Doctrine,  and the celestial Doctrine of the Church, has been seen, it will be evident that it is in no way in contradiction with this teaching. For it ought to be realized that though it is of the greatest importance that the natural and the rational should be seen as two entirely distinct things, according to what I have said in the first part of this letter, nevertheless, if the relation of the three discrete  degrees of altitude — celestial, spiritual, and natural — is the subject under consideration, then, of course, both the natural and the rational belong to the natural degree. For, although the

 

114     A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

teaching is that the rational proper, or the interior rational, constitutes the celestial degree of the human mind (A.C. 5145, see also n. 1914), nevertheless the rational is not the celestial degree in itself, but it is that inmost of the natural degree which by regeneration, through influx from the celestial degree and thus by correspondence with it, has become the dwelling-place in the natural degree for the celestial degree. This is according to the teaching: "That the natural degree of the human mind viewed in itself is continuous, but that through correspondence with the two higher degrees, if it is elevated, it appears as if discrete" (D.L.W. 256, chapter-heading). This is what I meant by the "very real apparent discreteness of the natural mind" in my letter to you of March 16th, the true purport of which, however, evidently seems to have escaped your attention. If a man becomes spiritual, in that the spiritual degree with him is opened (D.L.W. 252), he does indeed "not exchange the natural degree of his mind for a spiritual degree" as you say in your paper on The Rational, its Origin and Growth-, he remains in the natural degree; but nevertheless there is now formed in it the appearance of a discreteness, so much so that there is no relation between the different apparently discrete degrees in the natural than that of correspondence. The apparently discrete degrees of the natural which are formed through correspondence with the superior degrees by influx are called the interior natural, the exterior rational, and the interior rational. These degrees make the basis of the interior degrees not only with man but also with the Angels, as is plainly taught in n. 5145 of the ARCANA. Even the Angels must have a basis in the natural degree; otherwise they would be infinite; and it is for this reason that man must first be born in the natural world. For although it is true that a man when after death he becomes an Angel of the spiritual  Heaven,  for the first time becomes conscious in the spiritual degree itself, and that a man when after death he becomes an Angel of the celestial Heaven, for the first time becomes conscious in the celestial degree itself — while both of them as long as they lived in the world were conscious only in the natural degree — nevertheless it is not the spiritual degree itself or the celestial degree itself, which makes a spiritual or a celestial Angel,

 

115            REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

but the qualification of the natural degree by influx from. and correspondence with the superior degrees. For it is the natural degree, and not the superior degrees, which must be regenerated. It is the exterior rational and the interior rational — which both belong to the natural degree — which make the spiritual and the celestial Heaven respectively (see A.C. 5145).

  When man is regenerated in the first degree, so as to come as to his mind into the society of the Angels of the ultimate Heaven, he indeed remains conscious only in the natural degree, but through correspondence there is formed in his natural mind the interior natural, into which another man can never come and in the concepts of which another man can never have part, unless he has gone through the same degree of regeneration. When a man is regenerated in  the second  degree, so as to come as to his mind into the society of the Angels of the second Heaven, he indeed remains conscious only in the natural degree, but through correspondence there is formed in his natural mind the next higher apparently discrete degree, which is the exterior rational, into which another man can never come and in the concepts of which another man can never have part, unless he has gone through the same degrees of regeneration. And likewise, when a  man is  regenerated in the third  degree,  he. indeed  remains conscious only in the natural degree, but through correspondence there is formed in his natural mind the highest apparently discrete degree of it, which is the interior rational, for the first time a dwelling-place in the natural degree for the celestial degree, into which another man can never come and in the concepts of which another man can never have part, unless he has also gone through all the degrees of regeneration.

  That there are not only the three degrees of the three Heavens, but accordingly also three degrees which make a discrete distinction between the men of the Church, is taught in n. 4154 of the ARCANA CELESTIA: "The goods and truths of the internal man are of threefold degrees, such as exist in the three Heavens; and the goods and truths of the external man are also of threefold degrees, and correspond to the internal ones. . . . These goods and truths of threefold degrees pertain to the external man, and they correspond to so many goods and truths of the

 

 116               A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

internal man. The goods and truths of all the degrees are entirely distinct from each other, and are not in the least confused; those which are interior are component and those which are exterior are composite". Here you have an exact description of the three discrete degrees of truths in the Church, thus even with man as long as he lives in this world. The discreteness is most aptly described in this that the truths of a higher degree are the components and those of the next lower degree are their composites, of which qualification we can see at once that it is applicable not only to the degrees into which man comes after death, but just as much to the natural degree. Yea, it is only in the natural degree that such a discreteness can find its foundation, for the superior degrees regarded in themselves, apart from their foundation in the natural degree, are as it were infinite; which is the reason that regeneration is of the natural degree and must take place as long as man lives in this world. The fact that man after death may come into one of the three discrete Heavens is entirely dependent on the fact that while living in the world those basic discrete degrees in his natural mind have been formed. The difference between the natural, the spiritual, and the celestial Doctrine of the Church is therefore not that those. who are in the natural Doctrine are conscious only in the natural degree, while those who are in the spiritual Doctrine have become conscious in the spiritual degree of the mind itself, and  those who  are  in the celestial Doctrine have become conscious in the celestial degree of the mind itself. This would indeed be a great error, which would take away the truth that the wisdom of the Angels transcends the wisdom even of a celestial man. There is no doubt that this is the impression which you have received from reading DE HEMELSCHE LEER. But I trust that it will now be plain to you that this has never been the position of DE HEMELSCHE LEER. The difference between the three discrete degrees of the Doctrine of the Church lies altogether in the discreteness of the natural mind through correspondence with the interior degrees. From what is said in the ARCANA, n. 4154, of a higher discrete degree of the natural being the component of the lower discrete degree, and this the composite of the higher, it can be plain that there is such a great difference between the

 

 117                   REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

discrete degrees of the Doctrine of the Church, that they are "most distinct and never are confused", and man can come into these degrees only by regeneration. 'The truths of a higher degree remain hidden and inaccessible to a man who is regenerated only in a lower degree. Nevertheless, the truths of the Angels who are in the spiritual or the celestial itself, always exceed by several discrete degrees the truths of men even of the higher degrees, as long as they live in this world.

  From the preceding considerations it may be -seen that correspondences must also be applied in the exegesis of the Third Testament. The only application which you apparently allow as expressed on p. 68 of your pamphlet. is that "the internal sense as it is with the angels cannot be seen by men, but it can be seen in a corresponding form by men". This indeed is true, but the teaching is that also the natural mind, by the opening of the superior minds, is at last divided into three "most distinct degrees, which are by no means to be confused" (A.C. 4154); and then also between these degrees there is no relation except that of correspondence. That there are such genuine correspondences not only between the natural degree in itself and the spiritual and celestial degrees in themselves, but also, through influx and by correspondence, in the natural degree itself, yea, even in the corporeal degree, is plain from the  correspondence between muscles, which are composites, bundles of fibers of which they are composed, and single fibers, within these, which are the first components. It is the explicit teaching of the Latin Word that these are genuine discrete degrees, between which there is no relation except that of correspondence; and yet they are all within the corporeal plane. Another example is that of the three degrees of the blood.

  It is exactly the same with the letter of the Latin Word. Those who judge about its internals simply from direct reading remain only in the outermost generals. The rational there is laid down in the natural. Those who have a genuine understanding of its natural sense are in rational-natural truths; but only after the death of the body do they come into the light of the ultimate Heaven itself. Those who with the orderly means have opened that letter in the second degree are in exterior rational truths;

 

118                 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

but only after the death of the body do they come into the light of the second Heaven itself. Those who with the orderly means have opened the letter in the third degree are in interior rational truths; but only after the death of the body do they come into the light of the third Heaven itself. To those who have understood this discreteness also of the natural degree, it is quite plain that a knowledge of correspondences is indispensable also for the exegesis of the Third Testament.

  From all these considerations it may now be clear to you that when you said on a certain occasion, by way of an objection against DE HEMELSCHE LEER: That "no matter how interior man may become, he will never see exactly that which the Angels see and perceive", * your understanding of the position of DE HEMELSCHE LEER was not according to the actual facts, for DE HEMELSCHE LEER has never held such a view. And I cannot but believe that the great stress which you laid on the truth that as long « as man lives in this world he cannot come into spiritual or celestial truth itself, which you did to prove that also the Third Testament has a letter, induced you to lose sight of the different degrees of truth in which man by regeneration must come while living in this world.

  I also hope it has now become clear that the words in your last letter to me: "(your position) it seems to me, implies that a regenerated man is rationally conscious on the spiritual degree of the mind itself", are based on the same misunderstanding. It may now be plain to you that we do not hold this view. Nevertheless, if the teaching of the opening of the degrees of the mind is fully seen, it appears to be a genuine truth, that after a man has been regenerated in the second degree he then has "a genuine spiritual rational, and in its light he can 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" (see the same place in your last letter). This truth is plainly taught in the Latin Word. Nothing is more common there than that the exterior rational is called "the spiritual rational", although it is always self-understood that this spiritual                          * See NEW CHURCH LIFE 1931: 675.

 

119                 REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

rational is not the spiritual itself in which the spiritual Angels are, but only the external of it; nevertheless discretely distinct from the interior natural in which are those of the natural Church, who believe that the letter of the Word is the Doctrine of the Church itself. So in the ARCANA CELESTIA, n. 10584, we read: "Those are said to see the back-parts of Jehovah and not His face, who believe and adore the Word, but only its external which is the sense of the letter, and do not penetrate more interiorly, as do those who have been enlightened, and who make for themselves Doctrine out of the Word, by which they may see its  genuine  sense,  thus its  interior  sense". If it is here said that those who are enlightened make for themselves Doctrine out of the Word, what else can this mean, than that genuine  Doctrine is born in them from the Lord; genuine Doctrine certainly cannot be born from their infernal proprium.

  If you say: "I cannot see with you when you say that 'the genuine Doctrine of the Church, being spiritual out of celestial origin, is born ... in the living Church' ", it seems to me that you have not yet paid attention to this teaching in the 20th and 26th chapters of Genesis, where it is plainly given. These are not our words, but the very words of the Latin World itself. How great your misunderstanding of our position is, appears from the following words in your letter to me of May 1st: "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". The leading idea of DE HEMELSCHE LEER is that also the Latin Word without Doctrine is as a candlestick without light (S. S. 50-61); and that the genuine Doctrine of the Church is spiritual out of celestial origin, but not out of rational origin; and that the Lord is that Doctrine itself (cf. A.C. 2496, 2497, 2510, 2516, 2533, 2859; A.E. 19). If the meaning of these leading theses (see Third Fascicle, p. 2) is understood, it will be clear that there has never in the least been the idea that the Doctrine of the Church is "a New Word".

  I feel that I should dwell in detail on another misunderstanding, namely that you believe that according to our

 

120                 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

position we come to the number of nine Heavens. But time forbids. I can only express the hope that you will not base further conclusions on this belief, because I can assure you .it is another misunderstanding. I hope to find the occasion at another time to show you this in detail, although I believe that if the foregoing remarks are seen in their application to the order of the Heavens, the misunderstanding may already have been removed.

  ERNST PFEIFFER

  REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER

 July 13th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer.

    In trying to answer your letter I hardly know where to begin. It does not appear to me to be of much use to take up the details of your reasoning in the first part of your letter, by which you try to show that the human understanding and reception of good and truth from the Lord are Divine just as this good and truth is Divine, and that this is the teaching of the Latin Word. As I see it, it is your interpretation of the teaching, while I interpret it differently. I do not doubt that your interpretation to you seems so logically necessary that it is the teaching itself, though it does not seem so to me. As you say later on, that is not. the real issue. Interiorly we may have the same idea, though in giving it form in thoughts and words we each have different phases of the Divine teaching in mind, and therefore express the idea differently.

  You say: "There should be no further difficulty for our mutual understanding, if you only will admit that no evils or falsities can ever adhere to this 'celestial and angelic proprium', which is 'truly human from the Lord' and 'from the Lord's proprium' ".

  I do admit this. The truth of it has never been questioned in my mind, though you may have thought so from what I have said with regard to the Doctrine of the Church, that it may include fallacies.

  The difficulty for our mutual understanding remains notwithstanding this my admission, and in spite of the fact that we do agree in many essential points.

 

 121             REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER 

 

  Before I resigned from the CONVENTION and joined the GENERAL CHURCH, after I had come to see clearly that the Writings are the Word of the Lord, I understood that this Word like the former revelations of Divine Truth would be of no avail for the establishment of the Lord's New Church, unless the good and truth from the Lord there revealed were received by men in their affections, thoughts and lives; that they cannot be so received except in the measure that men understand the Word; and that therefore the Doctrine of the Church is according to its understanding of the Word; therefore that the Word is not the Doctrine of the Church, which is to be drawn from the Word. When the understanding in the Church of what is said in the Word is genuine, the Doctrine of the Church is Divine, because it is the good and truth of the Lord received by human affections and thoughts, living in them, and deciding or guiding men's thoughts, motives and affections in their natural life.

  The Divine Good and Truth in the Word is the Lord Himself in His infinite Divine Human. Divine Good and Truth revealed in the Word, that is the Lord's Divine Human received by men, is the infinite finited in them, in their affections, thoughts, and lives. To this finited Divine Good and Truth in men, the Divine Human of the Lord can come and dwell. Therefore the Lord Himself is the inmost in the Church and in the heavens, though to men and angels He appears to be above them.

  The Divine Truth in the Word is the seed; the proprium of man is the soil; received there it can grow, mature and bear fruit in different measures — first the stalk, then the ear, and at last the full corn in the ear.

  The difficulty in the way for our mutual understanding arises from different conceptions of what constitutes the human proprium; and these different conceptions are caused, I believe, by our different views of the natural degree of the human mind and how it functions in the states of reformation and regeneration.

  After the end of the Most Ancient Church, when men no longer had any interior perception from the Lord of what is good, and therefore what is true, men are born in ignorance, and all knowledge must be given them from without  to  the  slowly  growing natural faculty of

 

122     A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

understanding. Influx from the Lord through heaven can give them no knowledge of good and truth. They must be instructed by means of the Word in an external form, and as they are conscious only on the natural degree of the mind, the revelation of good and truth is accommodated to the state of that degree.

  This degree is man's proprium. In it are inherited tendencies to all kinds of evil. In it are remains from the Most Ancient and the Ancient Churches, or from the Lord through them. Men and animals alike are created with a natural disposition to love others and a natural desire to know things. Men differ from animals in this that the human natural disposition to love others can be directed to the good of eternal life and the human desire to know can be directed to the truths of eternal life. Good and evil alike are so created, and with good and evil alike this natural disposition has from the Lord the faculty of reacting to the influx from Him through the heavens, which in the beginning came directly and immediately to their conscious life, but after the flood can come only as they receive instruction from the Word about eternal life, given to their natural mind.

  Influx from the celestial heaven preserves during infancy this faculty of reacting to good affections, and the angels present keep as far as possible the tendencies to love of self away, or in a state of innocence.

  When the natural memory and the embryonic understanding have by life in the world been developed to a state that enables the infant to receive instruction from the Word in Divine Truth, spiritual angels are present with the child endeavoring to imbue the child with their love of truth, and by the truths the child is instructed in to give form and quality to the disposition to love others in the child's nature.

  The knowledge and understanding of truth developed through instruction is natural, of the same quality as the child's knowledge and understanding of natural things, as long as it is only of the memory and thought from memory. If during growth the remains of good in the affections have caused the child or youth to pay particular attention to some truths, so that he thinks of them from affection, then his understanding is taking on a spiritual quality.

 

123             REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER 

 

and this understanding is giving form and quality to the affections for good in the natural disposition.

  But not until the natural faculty of understanding has been developed to a state which allows the growing youth to think of the truths in the Word he has been instructed in from himself, can he have any real faith in these truths, that is, a faith that is his own apart from the faith he has in the knowledge and wisdom of his teachers. Not before that can he be said to have any rationality that can be elevated and illumined by revealed Divine Truth, thereby receiving an interior or spiritual quality. Then first can the state of regeneration as distinct from reformation really begin, as he then can begin to compel himself to think and act from the truths he knows, understands and has faith in.

  By thus compelling himself, affections for good that he has become conscious of in his understanding can become of his will as a natural being, and be kept entirely apart from the inherited tendencies to evil.

  It is true that the Lord does this, because He inflows in the affections for good in man's proprium and removes the affections for evil in the same proprium, so giving to man's proprium a spiritual and heavenly quality, and that man must acknowledge this and that of himself he can do nothing. But this acknowledgement is not possible until his understanding has been instructed from the Word that it is so, and his own reason sees it in the light from the Word, or, as he advances in regeneration, he perceives and feels that it is so.

  This understanding of truths from the Word has by instruction been given to his natural faculty of understanding, and the will to live according to them is given to his natural faculty of willing, that is, to the faculties he is created with as a human being, and which all men are created with, those who receive instruction from the Word and compel themselves to live from it, and those who do not.

  The will and the understanding constitute the natural mind of all men. In the regenerating man they receive an interior quality from the Lord that is truly human. This natural mind of man is after the death of the body the spirit that lives its own life, in heaven or in hell according to its quality. The regenerating man lives in one of the

 

124                A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

heavens as an individual part of the Grand Man, performing a use and therefore in a place as part of an organ in the Grand Man that his reception of Good and Truth from the Lord has fitted him for.

  His heavenly or truly human quality is from the Lord's good and truth received by the remains of good in his natural disposition, that is, the proprium he is created with which has received instruction from the Word and thereby has been given truly human quality and form. That proprium is from the proprium of the Lord's Divine Human because from the Word that is the Divine Human.

  You may of course, if you like, call this proprium Divine without in your own mind confusing it with the Divine Human, the created with the uncreated, the finite with the infinite, but when you do so you will unavoidably be misunderstood by others who have not from the beginning been with you, participating in the development of your thought and thereby enabled to understand the meaning you put into it.

                                         July 15th.

  I had written the above when I received your second letter. I have read it with great interest as it seems to open a way for a better mutual understanding, though there are still some things that T cannot see with you. I will try to write you as soon as possible.

                            ALBERT BJORCK

  REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFEB

  July 19th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer.

  I have re-read Mr. Groeneveld's address The Coming of the Lord in the Doctrine of the Church, and also your comments on it in the Third Fascicle, p. 40.

  What Mr. Groeneveld says I have always found interesting, and generally I have felt in agreement. But I may not have got his idea quite correctly. I notice in re-reading what you say in the Third Fascicle that I have put a question mark after the sentences on the bottom of p. 41: "The rational or the internal man with him, which is the Lord's, before and during regeneration makes itself felt

 

125             REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER 

 

only by an unconscious influx. For that rational in itself is the  proper  celestial  with man,  since  the rational  in itself or the interior rational makes  the  third. Heaven (cf. A.C. 5145). It is therefore clear that man, before he has become celestial, does not live in the rational but only receives an influx from the rational".

  I have always understood the words in Swedenborg's letter to Rev. Hartley to mean that the rational existing by means of influx from the Lord into the celestial and spiritual heavens at the time when the Lord was born man on earth corresponds to the rational during infancy and boyhood in a man who is being reformed or in the first state of ~generation,, when the remains of good in his natural mind receive influx from the Lord through the heavens. These remains are kept alive and augmented by means of instruction in truths, and .thus the natural mind is being reformed in preparation for regeneration. The rational during that state cannot be said to be the child's or youth's own rational, but is in him from others through his faith in parents and teachers and from that in the truth of what they teach him. Not until he commences to think for himself about and from these truths he has been instructed in, can he be said to have a rational understanding of his own; and not until he obeys the truths because he has faith in them from his own reason, can he be said to have a rational will of his own; and not until then can the state of regeneration begin. This I see implied in the statement that "the rational is predicated solely of the celestial and spiritual natural".

  In other words, as the natural understanding is instructed in Divine Truth, and elevated and illumined by this truth can it become spiritual in quality; and not until the natural faculty of willing obeys the truth rationally understood can it take on a spiritual quality.

  "Rationality itself is from spiritual light, and not at all  from natural light"  (D.P.  167). Even those in hell see from spiritual light, but according to the structure of their understanding.

  "The faculty of receiving spiritual light is what is meant by rationality. From this faculty man has not only the power of thinking but also of speaking from thoughts" (D.L.W. 247).

 

126                 A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

  In his natural understanding is inherent from creation the faculty of receiving spiritual light, but he can receive this light from heaven or from hell. From both and from nature influx comes to man's desire to know, but the influx from the Lord through heaven can reach the desire for knowledge in his natural mind only by the means of the Word in a natural or literal form, which his natural understanding can be instructed from in the same way as it can learn history, geography,  physiology or any natural science. Unless there were such a Word, men in the world could have no knowledge of anything pertaining to eternal life; and without knowledge of that there could not come to man any desire to live differently from what his physical existence and needs would seem to him to demand. Such things as charity and love, mercy and justice, would not exist for any length of time if the Word were taken away from the world, and men would become worse than animals.

  "The faculty of rationality man has from creation. This faculty consists in understanding things interiorly, and in drawing conclusions concerning what is good and true" (D.L.W. 413).

  When man is born he has no perception or knowledge of good or truth or anything else. He has the embryo of a mind which is slowly developed through sense impressions from without. In this mind there are implanted certain faculties which slowly grow, memory, will and understanding. As they grow they take on form and quality according to inherited and acquired tendencies, instruction, discipline, and man's own exertions. The interior tendencies of the mind man inherits from his father, the exterior form and quality from the mother. The interior mind from the father tends to all evil. The rational is according to the interior of the natural understanding, and by inheritance all men's natural will and understanding are directed by the love of self.

  The rational inherited from the father is the rational of self love. Therefore another rational must be born in man, that is, he must learn to think from another source. There is only one source from which truly rational thoughts can be born in man's natural understanding or  faculty  of thinking, and that source is Divine Truth revealed in a

 

127                REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER 

 

form accommodated to that faculty in man's natural mind. Divine Truth so revealed is the Word with men on earth.

  The Divine Truths in the Word are from the Lord and are the Lord, and the thoughts born in man's understanding from them are conceived by the Lord, our heavenly Father; they are sons of God. But before such thoughts can be conceived and born from the Spirit of the Lord in man's natural mind, it must be given a quality and form that makes it willing to receive the Spirit of the Lord. That quality and form is given to man's understanding by the Church as the mother by means of instruction from the Word and in doctrine from the Word.

  The rational thoughts born from the Word in man's natural faculty of thinking are of a nature discretely distinct from all thoughts born to the rational from the human father, but the faculty of understanding which is instructed from the Word, and in which these thoughts are born and grow, is the faculty of the mind that all men have from creation.

  The affections for good, born in man's natural faculty of loving, when man shuns what instruction from the Word has shown his understanding is evil, are of a nature discretely distinct from the affections his inheritance from human parents inclines him to harbor. They are as distinct as heaven is distinct from hell, but they are affections born in the natural will's faculty of loving that all men are created with.

  They are born from the Lord, first in man's intellectual part as understanding of what is evil by instruction from the Word, and as man obeys the affection for good in the understanding, the affections pertaining to love of self are one by one crowded to one side and affections for good and truth are made room for in man's natural will.

  This, as I understand it, is the plain general teaching of the Final Testament, and all particulars in the teaching of man's regeneration seem to me in perfect harmony with this general, and aid us to see it more clearly.

  When writing this I have had in mind particularly DIVINE LOVE AND WISDOM, n. 394—432, and ARCANA CELESTIA, n. 2715—2718, 10028, 10057.

  In CONJUGIAL LOVE, n. 495, it says: "A man is reformed by his understanding, which is done through the knowledge

 

128            A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

of good and truth, and a rational intuition thereby. If a man inspects rationally these truths and lives according to them, the love of the will is elevated at the same time". The same is said in THE TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, n. 571, 587, and many other numbers. In n. 589 it says: "He is reformed who is in affection for truth for the sake of truth; for this affection conjoins itself with the will; and if it progresses, it conjoins the will to the understanding and then begins regeneration".

  To me all this teaching conveys the idea that in the natural mind man is created, with there are certain faculties  which  can  respond  to  the  mediate  and immediate influx of  life  from  the Lord  through the Word and through heaven; and that these faculties in the natural degree are the beginnings of the spiritual and celestial degrees of the human mind. When they respond to the teaching of the Word and to the influx through heaven, they become the internal degrees of the natural, and as the external of the natural is ruled by this internal and brought into correspondence with it, man becomes spiritual natural or celestial-natural, of whom alone true rationality from the Divine Rational of the Lord's Divine Human can be predicated.

  The understanding of truth leads in the first state; the will to do according to the truths in the understanding leads in the second state; and as progress is made love for the truth of the Lord comes down in man's will and gives perception that what the Word teaches is really true and good.

  This perception is also in the elevated and illumined natural mind, for such as the quality of man's will and understanding is when he is living in the natural world, such is his spirit when it leaves the body. Man's will and understanding constitute his mind, and his mind is his spirit. It is the natural mind which in regeneration becomes spiritual or celestial as to quality.

  The perception a celestial-natural man has is joined to his understanding of the Word; he sees there continually truths that he had not seen before, but he never perceives truths that his understanding of the letter of the Word does not give him to perceive.

  As the understanding is a faculty of the natural mind,

 

129                REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER 

 

it is contingent not only on the progress in regeneration but also on hereditary and acquired character. The knowledge of correspondences gives great aid for the understanding of the Word and a rational comprehension of its teaching, because it is the science of sciences, and the greater the knowledge of all science the mind has, the clearer and more rational should its ability to think be.

  But the Lord in His Second Coming has given us a Word which in its very letter reveals Divine Truths in such a way that man's understanding can see them, be elevated and illumined by them, and so see more, and this to eternity.

  I may misunderstand your position. Very likely I do, as your position in the light of some of the things you say in your last letter does not appear to differ very much from that I have tried to put forward in the above. Other things said, however, give me the impression that you postulate a celestial and a spiritual degree of the human mind from conception which are in perfect correspondence with the celestial and spiritual heavens, and that, as man's natural degree is becoming regenerated so that he loves the truths of the literal sense and the good they teach, his spiritual degree opens, and he from that degree sees spiritual truths hidden in the letter, and similarly with the celestial degree.

  This letter will no doubt disappoint you, because I have not taken up the different points in your letter one by one in order. But to do that would have taken me much longer time than I at present have at my disposal. I have therefore chosen to try to express my position in such a way that you from that will understand the reasons why I cannot agree with you, when you call the human reception and understanding of the good and truth from the Lord, Divine. Also why I cannot agree with your thought of the application of correspondences in unfolding the spiritual sense of the Latin Word.

  Finally I will say that when I in a letter to you said: "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", I did not mean to say that I thought this was your position, but that men reading what

 

130                A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

is said in DE HEMELSCHE LEER might easily understand it to mean that, and that the form of expressions used would give them a certain justification for thinking so.

    I cannot stop for more now except to point out that you and I both in some instances base our different understanding on the same statements in the Latin Word, showing that our understanding of what is implied in these statements differs. A man's understanding of the Word is his doctrine. We cannot both be right. Some false conception or fallacious conclusion must adhere to the doctrine one of us has drawn from the Word. If you make the understanding entirely dependent on regeneration, you cannot speak of the Doctrine you have drawn as the Divine Doctrine without implying that the other understanding is from a more imperfect state of regeneration.

                            ALBERT BJORCK

REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

 July 20th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

    I believe you will find the following numbers in the APOCALYPSE EXPLAINED, of especial interest at this time:

  "Nothing of the understanding and perception of truth is from man's proprium, but all out of God" (n. 627).

  "And I will give unto My two witnesses, signifies the good of love and charity, and the truth of doctrine and faith, both from the Lord. This is evident from the signification of witnesses, as being those who in heart and faith acknowledge the Lord, His Divine in His Human, and His Divine, proceeding [Note, the Divine, proceeding, is the Holy Spirit in Heaven and the Church]. ... These goods and truths are meant by the witnesses, because they, that is, all who are in them, acknowledge and confess the Lord; for it is the Divine, proceeding, which is called the Divine Good and the Divine Truth, whence is the good of love into God and the good of charity to the neighbor, and the truth of Doctrine and the truth of faith thence, which bear witness concerning Him; from which it follows that those who are in these likewise bear witness concerning the Lord, that is, acknowledge and confess Him.  For it is the Divine that bears witness con-

 

    REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK  131

 

cerning the Divine and not man out of himself; consequently the Lord is in the good of love and in the truth of Doctrine therefrom, that are in man, and it is these that bear witness" (n. 635).

  "By the temple in like manner was represented Heaven and the Church; by the adytum where the ark was, was represented the inmost or third Heaven, also the Church with those who are in inmosts, which is called the celestial Church; by the temple outside the adytum was represented the second or middle Heaven, also the Church with those who are in the middle, which Church is called the internal spiritual Church; by the inner court was represented the ultimate or first Heaven, also the Church with those who are in ultimates, which Church is called the internal natural Church; but by the outer court was represented the entrance into Heaven" (n. 6306).

                                                  THEODORE PITCAIRN

 P.S.  You might find it interesting to compare the above with the first paragraph of n. 630 which speaks of the Word, the Church and of Worship in relation to the parts of the temple..

  REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  July 24th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

    Please accept my thanks for your last two letters which you sent me in answer to my letters of July 2nd and of July 9th. As you say yourself you did anticipate my disappointment that you did not enter upon the points which I developed, although in several places I made the explicit and urgent request for a direct reply. It is quite evident that I have failed  in my efforts to make our position clear to you, and that all you have replied is the result of misunderstanding. I most certainly must insist on taking all the blame on my own account, and I now only hope that our personal meeting, which may become possible within a few days, will give the opportunity to actually enter together upon these things.

  That you still must have misunderstood us is plain from

 

132                A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

the fact that instead of entering upon the points which I presented, yon again fill several pages to prove a thing which we have never denied, namely that all reformation and regeneration must take place in the natural degree, that there would be no beginning and no progress in regeneration if there were not a Word given which appeals to that degree, and that that Word is the one and only source of truth for man.

  There are two things I note in your last letter which seem to influence your argument in such a way as to make it impossible for you to see our position. First, you seem to believe that the rational soul which a man inherits from his father from outermosts to inmosts is infernal, while in reality the paternal seed does not only contain inmostly the  very  soul  of  man  but  also  interiorly  the  first beginnings of his genuine mind; if this were not the case man would not be born as a smiling baby, but as a monstrous creature of hell; the smiling of the baby testifies to the presence of a rational mind. And secondly, you still seem to believe that the Word which is outside of man can be "born" in man, so as to be within man, simply like water from a bottle is poured into a glass, while in reality such a transfer is impossible as being contrary to order. It ought to be realized that such a transfer, by which the Divine things of the Word from being outside of man may become the Divine things of the Word within man, is not possible except through a spiritual influx from within, whereby all the human intellectual faculties, thus not only the direct cognizance of the letter, are involved as receiving that influx in free cooperation as of themselves.  And  this  spiritual  influx  is  dependent on the conception of a new seed from within from the Lord (A.C. 1438), which can descend into the human mind by no other way than through the inmost and genuine interiors of the original seed derived from the father. The fundamental law that all influx is according to reception seems still to be left out of consideration in your reasoning.

  In the last paragraph of your first letter you say: "You may of course if you like, call this proprium Divine . . . but you will unavoidably be misunderstood by others who have not from the beginning been with you, ... and are not enabled to understand the meaning you put in it". To this

 

133             REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

I must reply that a man cannot willfully make the meaning of a term and then expect that others will follow him. The meaning of a term is not made by man but it is found by him in the Word. The point therefore is not that others have not been aware that we have given such a meaning to the term Divine; but the point is that they are ignorant of the fact that this is the meaning which the Latin Word always gives to the term Divine when the subject is not the Divine in itself but the Divine from itself (D. P. 52). There are several places where the Latin Word explicitly speaks of "the Divine things of the Church" (see one place D. P. 215). And whereas man when he is being regenerated is  made  a  Church  (A. C.  3654, 3939, 4427, 6113, 9325, 10310) it is also possible and orderly to speak of "the Divine things of man". It ought to be plain that thereby the Lord alone is exalted, and not man.

  As long as man sees the Divine things of the Word as outside himself he is in a state of obedience to them and does not see truths in light, although as to his spirit he may be among the Angels of the lower parts of the Heavens (cf. D.L.W. 253); but when man sees the Divine things of the Word within himself, which can only be by virtue of the opening of the spiritual degree of the mind, he sees truths in light (cf. D.L.W. 252). That man can see the Divine things within himself, and that this seeing is out of Heaven, is described in n. 10675 of the ARCANA.

  In the last paragraph of your second letter you bring in the question of personal regeneration. As soon as personal things enter, the subject is obscured; it can never be understood unless it be seen from the affection of truth as an entirely abstract proposition.

  I am looking forward with much pleasure to seeing you and Mrs. Bjorck soon.

                            ERNST PFEIFFER

  NOTE BY THE EDITOR

  At this point the correspondence was interrupted by the British Assembly, London, July 30th to August 1st, which was attended by the three gentlemen concerned. On Thursday and Friday, July 28th and 29th, the two days preceding the Assembly, they had several long conversations in which the subject of this correspondence was discussed. Mr. H. D. G. Groeneveld was also present at these meetings.

 

134     A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN

August 27th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Pitcairn.

    Thank you very much for sending me Mr. Hugo Odhner's letter and your reply. I have read both twice and I found your letter very interesting. For myself I will say that after our conversations in London and after the papers read at the Club * and at the Assembly **, I understand your position better and am in much closer agreement with it than I 'have been. It certainly seems more rational than Mr. Odhner's which I cannot understand. There are however some details about which I am doubtful about your precise meaning. You say in your reply: "It is this new man that receives influx, for the Lord can dwell only in His Own with man". The question .arises: what is it in man that receives the influx of good and truth from the Lord before the new man is formed? Is it not the ability to understand truth and to will good which all men,  good and evil alike, are created with?. And which therefore is eminently human. The earth is created with the ability to respond to the action of the sun's rays and to produce vegetable and animal life. In the corresponding way the human mind is created to respond to the influx of good and truth from the spiritual sun. It seems to me yet, in spite of what has been said in explanation, that when you say that this reception is Divine, you do not distinguish sufficiently between the Divine and the created, whil6, as I understand it, the Third Testament constantly stresses the importance of such distinction. In this connection I would like to draw your attention to what is said in A.C. 3671, and also 9258. The teaching I get from these numbers is that the soil into which the seed from the Lord can fall and produce thoughts and affections from Him, is itself produced by the external instruction from the Word responded to by

 

 * The Understanding of the Word, address by Rev. Ernst Pfeiffer, given before the New Church Club, on Friday evening, July 29th.

  ** Series and Degrees in the Latin Word as illustrated by the Law of the Firstborn, address by Rev. Theodore Pitcairn, given before the British Assembly, on Monday morning, August 1st.

 

135             REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

the human ability to understand truth and to will good. This response seems to my understanding of the teaching to be human and not Divine, if we keep in mind the distinction between the Creator and the created.

  I have mentioned this to show you why I find it difficult to regard the reception of truth from the Lord on man's part as Divine, though I can see what you mean when you say the new man's reception is Divine.

  I should be very glad if you would consider this and tell me your explanation when it is convenient for you to do so.

                               ALBERT BJORCK:

  REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

 September 2nd 1932. 

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

    Thank you for your letter which I read with much interest. I do not quite understand your point in regard to the first reception before regeneration and the reception in the new man. The subject is the nature of the genuine Doctrine of the Church, which always pertains to the new man, being spiritual out of a celestial origin.

  Freedom and rationality or the ability to understand truth and will good, as you say, are the Lord's with every man, both the evil and the good; thus these abilities are Divine. But the abilities and the use or misuse of the abilities are two different things. The genuine use of the abilities, that is, the genuine understanding of truth and the genuine will of good, is also the Lord's with man and is Divine.

  In using the words human and Divine we must always observe closely the series we are treating of. The word human means manlike or manly, while the ' word Divine means Godlike or Godly. In one series it is evident that the Lord is the only Human, because He is the only Man; thus there is nothing essentially Human except the Divine Human. In another series the Divine and the human are used in the relation of God or of the Lord and of man; while in still another series the human is used as that quality which distinguishes a man from an animal. The Word Divine is used in relation to the Divine Itself in the Lord, the Divine Human of the Lord, and the Divine thence with man. Certainly in this last series, at least in

 

136                A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

one aspect the Divine does not refer to the Uncreate or Infinite, and thus the distinction is not as 'you make it between "the Divine and the created". We read: "But the Divine Truth is the Divine Good appearing in Heaven before the Angels, and on earth before men, and although it is apparent, it is nevertheless Divine Truth" (A.C. 3712). What appears before men and Angels is never the Uncreated, but is the Divine appearing in created form, which nevertheless is called Divine Truth.

  In regard to the ground which receives the seed, inmostly regarded the Lord is the Ground as He is the Rock. For the Lord is the First and the Last, and He operates from His Own in Firsts through His Own in lasts in man. Concerning ground we read: "And I shall bring thee back to the ground, signifies conjunction with Divine Doctrine. This appears from the signification of bringing back, as denoting to conjoin again; and from the signification of ground, as denoting the Doctrine of good and truth in the natural man, here Divine Doctrine. . . . Divine Doctrine is Divine Truth, and Divine Truth is all the Word of the Lord; Divine Doctrine itself is the Word in the supreme sense ...  ; hence Divine Doctrine is the Word in the internal sense ... ; Divine Doctrine is also the Word in the literal sense ... ; and since the literal sense contains in itself the internal sense, and this the supreme sense, and altogether corresponds through representatives and significatives, therefore also Doctrine thence is Divine" (A.C. 3712; see the rest of this number, part of which is quoted above).

  Reception is never something merely passive, but is a reactive. The words reception, conception, and perception are closely related. Thus reception of good and truth is never like the pouring of water into a glass, which does not respond.

  The nature of the response of the earth to the seeds is thus described: "That the earth is the common mother may be illustrated spiritually; and is so illustrated by the fact that in the Word the earth signifies the Church, and the Church is the common Mother, and is so called in the Word. But that the earth or the soil can enter into the inmost of a seed even to its prolific principle, calling this forth and giving it circulation,  is  because every least

 

137                 REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK 

 

particle of dust or powder exhales from its essence a kind of subtle penetrating effluvium, which is an effect of the active force of the  heat out of the spiritual  world" (T.C.R. 585).

  Note that there are three essential influxes which cause the seed to grow. First, the influx into the germ which gives it life and is its soul; secondly, the influx of beat and light from the sun which is added from without; and thirdly, the influx out of the soil from the spiritual world, spoken of above. It is this active which is the essential of the soil as a receptive of the seed, and this in the corresponding thing in man is Divine. The soil as a dead created form could never be such a receptive. When the Word and the Doctrine remain in the external memory and its affections, there is such a barren and dead soil. In this connection note the number quoted in my letter to Mr. Hugo Odhner: "The Divine, proceeding, which is the Father in the Heavens, flows in equally with the evil and the good; but the reception of it must be from man; yet not from man as from man, but as it were from himself; for the faculty to receive is given to him continually, and it also inflows to the extent that man removes the opposing evils, also from the faculty that is continually given; and that faculty itself appears to be as it were the man's, although it is the Lord's" (A.E. 64423).

  Three influxes are here spoken of. The influx of good and truth; the influx of the power of reception of good and truth; and the influx of the power and willingness to shun evils as sins, upon which the reception of good and truth depends. The last of the three powers appears to be man's, but it is the Lord's as much as the former two, and becomes the Lord's when the man acknowledges it as the Lord's.

  While before regeneration man is in a perverted form, is it not clear that the very commencement of regeneration must have its origin in something Divine both as to influx and reception? The influx referred to in the quotation above is the same with the good and the evil; it is the reception that causes the origin of the new birth, or what is the same, it is the conception.

  In connection with the above, what is said about the "first love" is important. Man is granted a first love by unmerited advance in new states, and this first love is the

 

138            A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

Lord's with man, although it has not as yet been appropriated to the man as his own.

  I am not sure whether I fully understand the questions in your mind; I will await with interest your reply.

                       THEODORE PITCAIRN 

P. S.  I had written to Mr. Pfeiffer, asking him for his opinion with regard to your letter; and after I had written my reply as above I received from him a letter which I enclose.

REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN

  September 2nd 1932. 

Dear Mr. Pitcairn.

    We greatly enjoyed Mr. Bjorck's letter to you. In saying that he can see what you mean when you say that the new man's reception is Divine, he practically seems to admit the whole position.

  In answering him I would suggest to consider the following points: The very n. 3671, which Mr. Bjorck quotes, throws much light on the subject. "Interior good and truth is the seed" and "exterior good and truth is the soil"; this is the essential teaching of the number. Now if the question is asked: "What is it in man that receives the influx of good and truth from the Lord before the new man is formed?" the answer is indeed that such an influx is possible by virtue of the two faculties of rationality and liberty which are from the Lord with every man, as Mr. Bjorck himself suggests. The literal teaching of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, n. 88, is: "Every one who has any thought from interior understanding can see that the posse to will and the posse to understand are not from man but from Him who has the Posse itself, that is, who has the Posse in its essence. [I choose to keep the Latin word posse, for to translate it with 'power' is certainly not satisfactory; rather would I say 'ability'.] ... Therefore the posse in itself is Divine. ... From these things it is evident that those two faculties which are called rationality and liberty are from the Lord and not from man".

  Now it is plain that if interior good and truth are the seed and exterior good and truth are the soil, the evil man -- thus the man before the new man has been formed --

 

139                     REV. ERNST PFEIFFER TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN 

 

has neither good seed nor good soil, but only the posse which is even more interior than the seed. For every man — the evil also — has inmostly that posse or ability; it is the Lord with man. It is curious that in this n. 88 the actual words are used that it is Divine. This in itself is a full answer from the Word itself to Mr. Bjorck.

  If Mr. Bjorck therefore truly sees and admits what he says, namely, that he can see that the new man's reception is Divine, it must be said that the reception with the evil man, which is in the posse or ability to receive — as Mr. Bjorck himself suggests — is Divine even in a stronger sense. For it is plain that this reception is less "human" than the reception with the new man, where there is a reception for the first time even in a good soil.

  It seems evident that if Mr. Bjorck says that you do not distinguish  between  the  Divine  and  the  created,  the importance of which distinction is stressed in the Third Testament, he still thinks of that created thing in itself which in itself is dead; while the created thing together with the influx is not a dead thing, but is living from the Divine. In other words, Mr. Bjorck seems not yet to realize the significance of the teaching that not only the Divine in. itself is called Divine, but also the Divine from the Divine, which is conceivable only after reception. And this in spite of the fact that he now says that he can see that the new man's reception is Divine. If this objection were just, it would apply still more to the reception after regeneration than before regeneration. Because only after regeneration the reception is in that which in the case of man is "human", namely not only the interior good and truth which is of the rational, but even the exterior good and truth which is of the natural, which latter for the first time is a good soil. That this natural after regeneration also with man is Divine, is explicitly taught in the often quoted n. 3490 of the ARCANA CELESTIA.

  The difficulty of Mr. Bjorck, therefore, seems to lie in the fact that he still does not distinguish between the relation of the Divine and the created, in which relation the Divine is Life and the created in itself is dead in itself, and the relation of the Divine and the human, in which relation also the human after regeneration becomes Divine.

                              ERNST PFEIFFIER

 

140            A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN

  September 8th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Pitcairn.

    I am indebted to you for your answer to my last letter and also for letting me know Mr. Pfeiffer's opinion of it. The letter I wrote you was like several previous ones written not with the object in view to oppose your position, but for the purpose of getting at a distinct understanding of the meaning you yourselves are expressing. Your last letter has helped me a lot to understand, and I am prepared to say that as far as I now understand your meaning, I am virtually in agreement with you.

  I think that a clear presentation in DE HEMELSCHE LEER of the different senses in which the word Divine is used in the Third Testament, with a reference to your use of it when you say that man's understanding and reception of genuine truth is Divine, would go far in removing much misunderstanding and consequent opposition.

                           ALBERT BJORCK

  REV. THEO. PITCAIRN TO REV. ALBERT BJORCK

  September 16th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Bjorck.

    Thank you for your letter. In regard to the suggestion that something be published as to the different meanings of the word Divine, it appears to Mr. Pfeiffer and myself that if you are willing, this end might be accomplished by a publication in DE HEMELSCHE LEER of our correspondence on this subject and on the as it were discrete degrees.

                        THEODORE PITCAIRN

  REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. THEO. PITCAIRN

  September 19th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Pitcairn.

  Your letter just arrived. I am quite willing that our correspondence on the subject of the apparent discrete degrees of the natural, and on the use of the term "Divine", should be published in DE HEMELSCHE LEER.

 

 141             REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER 

 

  I  still  think  it  would  be  useful  to  add  a  concise exposition of the use of the term "Divine" in the Third Testament.

                           ALBERT BJORCK

  REV. ALBERT BJORCK TO REV. ERNST PFEIFFER

  EL TERRENO, PALMA DE MALLORCA, SPAIN.

October 29th 1932. 

Dear Mr. Pfeiffer.

    I have read the proofs of the recent correspondence between yon, Mr. Theodore Pitcairn, and myself with great interest. It gives me pleasure to know that it will be published and that thereby an opportunity will be given thinking members of the Church to get more information and a clearer understanding of what has become known as the Hague position.

  At present very little is known about it and still less is understood, except by a few on this side of the water, who have had an opportunity to read DE HEMELSCHE LEER and to get their impressions from that reading cleared by listening to  what you  have said at the late London Assembly.

  As far as I am concerned I am quite willing to confess that I have shared the common illusion that one's own individual  understanding  of  the  Third  Testament  is identical with what is there taught, and that the ideas of that understanding have been an obstacle for seeing the truth in your position as you have expressed it.

  But I can also claim that I have made efforts to understand your position, and through my correspondence with you and Mr. Pitcairn and our conversations in London before and during the Assembly I now think I understand your position. With that understanding has also come the conviction that your position is in agreement with the teaching of the Third Testament. This is of course what matters.

  I now perceive and see that the thoughts expressed by you are statements unfolding genuine truths of the Word, and that they, when understood in the Church, will lead

 

142     A CORRESPONDENCE ON THE DOCTRINE

 

the way for more interior truths to be seen, and be the means for an interior growth of the Lord's Church with men on earth that will never cease. I am an old man, and my work here must soon come to an end, but my hope and prayer is that the Lord may give you and Mr. Pitcairn, and all those who now are with you, light and strength for the continued opening of the Doctrine of the Church.

  May the Man-Child of the Woman, conceived and born by the Lord Himself, embodying His Spirit of Love, Mercy, and Truth, grow, and become a power in the world for the salvation of men and the restoration of Paradise on earth, is the prayer of

                           Your friend and brother

                                                                              ALBERT BJORCK

 

143

CONTENTS

 

 Leading Theses propounded in DE HEMELSCHE LEER  ................   2

 

 From the Transactions of the Swedenborg Gezelschap. From the Minutes of the Meeting of April 11th 1931. Elucidation by the Rev. Ernst Pfeiffer of the Address by H. D. G. Groeneveld "The Nineteenth of June 1931" ............................................3

 

The Nineteenth of June 1932. Address by the Rev. Ernst Pfeiffer................25

 Address by the H. D. G-. Groeneveld....................................................31

  A Correspondence on the Essence of -the Latin Word and the Divinity of the Doctrine of the Church, between the Rev. Albert Bjorck, and the Revds. Theodore Pitcairn and Ernst Pfeiffer  .  .  .  .  .  ................................................................................... 37

 

Advertisement. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

 

144

 

In preparation:

DE HEMELSCHE LEER

 

FIFTH FASCICLE OF THE ENGLISH EDITION

 

                To be obtained through: Academy Book Room, Bryn Athyn, Pa. U.S.A. Mr. Horace Howard,  30, Drury Road, Colchester, England. J. H. Ridgway, Esq., 2, Old Well Court, Durban, South Africa.

 

THE SWEDENBORG GENOOTSCHAP 229, LAAN VAN MEERDERVOORT THE HAGUE, HOLLAND

 

             Approximately 150 pages.

Price including postage 2.25 florins.  ($1.00 or 3s. 9d.)

 

  Through the generosity of the Reverend Theodore Pitcairn the English edition of DE HEMELSCHE LEER will henceforth be sent to the ministers of the GENERAL CHURCH free of charge. A copy of the Second and of the Third Fascicle will also be sent to them on application.

 

 INDEX

NEXT PAGES

 

Source pages

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