The Relative Infallibility of Genuine Doctrine

 

THE RELATIVE INFALLIBILITY OF GENUINE
DOCTRINE DRAWN FROM THE WRITINGS

An adress by the Reverend Theodore Pitcairn
before the Philosophy Club, Bryn Athyn, May 7th, 1931

The title DE HEMELSCHE LEER, or Heavenly Doctrine, has been called into question, and it has been maintained that to entitle a magazine in this manner is out of order; we will therefore commence with an explanation of what is meant by this title. It is not meant that the magazine is the Heavenly Doctrine itself, for the Heavenly Doctrine is the Son of Man Himself as seen in spiritual vision, before Whom a man falls prostrate, as John said concerning himself: “And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead” (Rev. 1 : 17). This is the sign of the seeing of the Son of Man, that one falls at His feet as dead, for during the seeing of the Son of Man all one’s proprial life is as it were dead. Although the Writings are the Heavenly Doctrine, the Son of Man, yet it is obvious at this day that the Son of Man is seldom seen, for if we read the Writings in our ordinary state, we see little vision, they often appear to us tedious, full of repetitions and uninspiring; instead of our proprial life being prostrate, it is very active. The Heavenly Doctrine itself is the vision of the Son of Man. The genuine Doctrine of the Church as written down in natural language, is a description of what has been seen. This description is more or less perfect according to man’s powers of description; in this the letter of the Doctrine of the Church differs from the letter of the Writings, for in the case of the latter the letter is of infinite perfection.

A man writes a book on astronomy and calls it The 8tarry Heavens; no one takes exception to the title, but it is recognized as an appropriate one, although every one recognizes that the book is not the starry heavens.

The Word and thus the Writings are infallible in an infinite sense, for they are the infinite Truth itself accommodated to all men and Angels to all eternity. On the other hand the Doctrine drawn from the Writings, in so far as it is genuine, is infallible in a relative and finite manner. By infallible in an absolute sense is meant that the Word is infallible in relation to the infinite; by infallible in a relative sense is meant that genuine Doctrine is infallible in relation to the finite series in which it occurs, on its own plane, and in its proper relations. That such relatively infallible truth exists on the natural plane is obvious from the science of mathematics. Thus if we say that five and six equal eleven we have spoken an infallible truth in this sense, for we can be certain that the time can never come when five and six will not equal eleven; and no matter what the subtleties of modern mathematics may develop, five plus six will always remain eleven on the plane of addition. Again in relation to astronomy there are certain known laws of the motion of the heavenly bodies, by which eclipses are predicted. These laws on their own plane, and in their proper relation, will never change to eternity.

We have said that an appearance of truth as seen by man, if genuine, is infallible on its own plane, and in its proper series. Let us illustrate this again by a natural example. It is an eternal truth that the sun rises in the east and not in the west, in its proper plane and series, namely, in relation to the surface of the earth and the appearance to man thereon. Yet if we tell a child that the sun rises in the east and later on someone tells him that the sun stands still and the earth turns around, and the child objects that be has been told that the sun rises in the cast, then the child is using a genuine appearance of truth on a lower plane to invalidate a genuine appearance of truth on a higher plane, and thus he comes into falsity. Again if he is told that the sun does not stand still but has its own motion among the stars, and if be replies that his teacher has told him that the sun stands still and the earth revolves about it, he again uses and appearance of truth on a lower plane to invalidate a truth on a higher plane. The truth itself as to the motion of the sun, would be its relation to the infinite, which is not in time and space, and this relation no man can see.

Hence it can be seen that while truth itself is infinite, and beyond the Comprehension of any man, yet the genuine appearances of truth in which man is, are also infallible, in a relative sense, for they are appearances of the Divine Love and Wisdom which is eternal.

Every genuine Doctrine drawn from the, Writings is infallible in the above sense. Take for example the Doctrine that the Writings are the Word of God. No matter bow much the understanding of what is signified by the Word may vary with increased wisdom, no matter how the idea may vary with increased wisdom, no matter how the idea may be phrased more suitably, the idea which was born in the Church will remain an eternal appearance of genuine truth,

Whatever spiritual thing a man sees clearly in spiritual light, is a genuine appearance of truth and is eternal. To deny on the plane of spiritual sight what obviously applies on the plane of natural sight would to deny the reality of spiritual sight.

If I see a house I can state with authority it is a house and is not a tree. If some one insists that it is a tree, I must conclude that either the man has something wrong with his eyes or is out of his mind; and the same thing applies to a spiritual tree and a spiritual house. What man is there who has any internal vision of the Writings who cannot say with authority that they are the Word of God, and that any one who does not see them as such has an imperfection in his spiritual eye? While such a truth is necessarily spoken with authority, yet the one who speaks it does not expect another to take the truth on his authority; he does not say: believe this because I tell it to you; but he says: go to the Writings, read them, and then pray to the Lord and your eyes may be opened to see the truth.

There is very little spiritual truth we can see in clear light-, in fact there is very little spiritual truth we can see at all. But if any truth is seen clearly in spiritual light, it necessarily has authority for him who sees it, and this in spite of the limitedness of his vision. To deny that we see a thing in spiritual light when we actually see it, would be dishonest and a denial of the Lord’s gift. There is nothing more irritating to the natural man than that another should see in clear light what he cannot see, particularly if he sees it in a light different from what we are accustomed to. Any one who confesses that he has such light, is in danger of having abuse directed against him; such is the history of the world; yet if a man has such light he may not deny without sinning against God.
But it may be said such light may be the light of fantasy, or imaginary light. But even in such a case it is no use telling a man that he is in the light of fantasy, and that he must deny the light by which be sees, and that if he does not do this be is in self-conceit and not in charity, because he thinks lie has light that others do not have. If a man is in the light of fantasy he is to be pitied, and the only possible cure in such a case, would be to gradually show the man that he, was in fantastic light. To take an intolerant attitude to the light, by which a man sees, is opposed to charity, even if the light were fantastic.

It is especially apt to animosity if the new light which a man believes that he has, is said to be of a discrete degree different from the former light. Any such belief is apt to be looked upon as the product of conceit and its fantasy; it is thought that those who say they have such light look with contempt on others, and boast themselves in their own superiority. Yet if the light is genuine the very opposite is the case for in the new light he sees a thousand times more evil and falsity in himself; he realizes many times more fully that he is nothing but evil and falsity; he sees more clearly that if it were not for the Lord’s mercy he would immediately sink into hell; and he is in more danger of wishing to give up the new responsibility and of envying those who do not have it, than to look with contempt upon his fellows. Nevertheless be can see the limitations of the former light in the new light, for he has been in both and can compare them. This is the experience of everyone who comes to the New Church; in the new light he can clearly see the limitations of the former light in which he was.

It is clearly taught in the Writings that progress is according to discrete degrees. If an intolerant attitude is taken towards the possibility of the opening of such degrees in practice, it is indeed a great hindrance. If a man claims that such an advance is being made and the claim is false, the falsity must be shown to exist, but there should be no intolerance before the falsity is shown; and even afterwards there should be pity rather than intolerance.

A discrete degree differs from a continuous degree in that in the case of the former there is a gap that separates, and there is communication only by correspondence. No advancement along continuous degrees can bridge this gap. In the Church we have this difference illustrated in the difference between the GENERAL CHURCH and CONVENTION. A man in CONVENTION may be very learned in the Writings while a man who really sees the Writings as the Lord in His Second Coming may be very simple and have little knowledge; yet the latter has a kind of wisdom that the former can never come to, unless he comes to see the Writings as the Lord. This is of course not to be taken as a personal judgment concerning the individuals of the two organizations.
DE HEMELSCHE LEER, if accepted, makes a Copernican revolution in one’s mode of thinking; or to use an expression from the Writings, it requires an inversion of state. And if one has once seen the universe from this -new point of view, it is quite as impossible to imagine going back to the former point of view, as it would be to imagine going back to the Ptolemaic system of astronomy after coming to see the Copernican system. This illustration is more than a mere comparison, as will appear.
In the former state the literal sense of the Writings is like a central globe in the universe around which the spiritual thoughts and affections of the Church were as it were carried. In the new state the spiritual sense of the Writings becomes the center and the literal sense of the Writings is seen carried in its orbits around the spiritual sense. Man still remains on earth; this is his foundation; he still rests on the letter of the Writings, but be nevertheless as it were views the solar system from the point of view of the sun,, that is from within.

DE HEMELSCHE LEER is accused of departing from the commandment not to judge. Yet DE HEMELSCHE LEER by no means makes a personal judgment; to interpret it as doing so, is to misunderstand its spirit. To judge we are told in several places in the Writings, is to teach truths which are from the Divine. Further we are told that judgment belongs to the Son of Man. Wherefore any doctrine that is false is a false judgment, and is from the man himself. On the other hand in so far as the Doctrine taught is genuine, so far it is not from the man, but is the judgment of the Son of Man. This kind of judgment has been manifest in the Church in the past. Namely in the teaching of Hindmarsh and later in the teaching of the ACADEMY. The Word, being infinite, applies to all states of the life of the Church to all eternity. The genuine Doctrine drawn from the Word will show bow it applies. If the Church were not given truth by which it could judge itself, it would in time come into a state like an imaginary heaven. The question therefore to be considered is as to whether the Doctrine born in the Church is genuine or not; if it is, it is the judgment of the Son of Man, if not it is the kind of personal judgment that is condemned.

De Hemelsche Leer – Third Fascicle, The Swedenborg Genootschap: The Hague, Holland, 1931.