114# “死过又活着的”表示祂被弃绝了，然而永生却来自祂。这从“死过”和“活着”的含义清楚可知：“死过”当论及主时，是指被弃绝(对此，参看AE83节)；“活着”是指永生来自祂(对此，参看AE84节)。当不靠近并敬拜主时，以及当只在祂的人身或人性方面，而不是同时在神性方面靠近并敬拜祂时，就说祂被弃绝了。因此，如今祂被教会里那些不靠近并敬拜祂，却向父祷告，求祂因儿子而怜悯他们的人弃绝；而事实上，没有人或天使能直接靠近并敬拜父，因为神性是不可见的，没有人能通过信和爱而与它结合。不可见的，无法进入思维，因而也无法进入意愿的情感；凡不进入思维的，都不进入信，因为属于信的事物必须是思维的对象。因此，进入意愿之情感的，也进入爱，因为属于爱的事物必影响人的意愿，人的一切爱都住在意愿中(参看《新耶路撒冷及其属天教义》，28–35节)。
但主的神性人身能进入思维，从而进入信，由此进入意愿的情感，也就是进入爱。由此清楚可知，若不从主并在主里面，就没有与父的结合。主在福音书中非常清楚地教导了这一点，如在约翰福音：
没有人在任何时候见过神。只有在父怀里的独生子将祂表明出来。(约翰福音1:18)
又：
你们没有在任何时候听见父的声音，也没有看见祂的形状。(约翰福音5:37)
马太福音：
除了子和子所愿意指示的，没有人知道父。(马太福音11:27)
约翰福音：
我就是道路，真理，生命；若不藉着我，没有人能到父那里去。(约翰福音14:6)
又：
你们若认识我，也就认识我的父；人看见了我，就看见了父。我在父里面，父在我里面，腓力，你不信吗？你们当信我，我在父里面，父在我里面。(约翰福音14:7–11)
又：
父与主为一。(约翰福音10:30, 38)
又：
我是葡萄树，你们是枝子；离了我，你们就不能做什么。(约翰福音15:5)
由此可见，主被教会里那些直接靠近父，向祂祷告，求祂因子发怜悯的人弃绝；因为这些人只能像思想另一个人的人身或人性那样去思想主的人身或人性，因而不能同时思想祂在人身或人性中的神性，更不能根据整个基督教界普遍接受的教义(参看AE10, 26节)去思想祂的神性与祂的人性或人身合一，如同灵魂与身体结合。在基督教界，有谁承认主的神性，却又愿意将主的神性与祂的人性或人身分离，或说将主的神性置于祂的人性或人身之外呢？然而，只思想人性或人身，同时却不思想祂在这人性或人身中的神性，就是关注分离的这两者，这就是不思想主，或思想作为一个位格的两者，尽管基督教界所接受的教义是，主的神性和人性或人身不是两个位格，乃是一个位格。
诚然，如今组成教会的人在根据教会的教义说话时，会想到主在其人性或人身中的神性；但当他们撇开教义在自己里面思考和说话时，情况就截然不同了。不过，要知道，当人根据教义思考和说话时，他处于一种状态；当他撇开教义思考和说话时，就处于另一种状态。当人根据教义思考和说话时，他的思维和言语来自他的属世人的记忆；但当他撇开教义思考和说话时，他的思维和言语来自他的灵。由于从灵思考和说话就是从人心智的内层思考和说话，所以那时他所说的，是他的真实信仰。此外，人死后的状态会变成他的灵在不受教义约束下在自己里面的思维和言语的样子，而不是他那来自教义的思维和言语没有与前者合一时的样子。
人不知道他在信和爱方面有两种状态：当他处于教义时是一种状态，当他不受教义约束时是另一种状态；但拯救他的，是撇开教义时他的信和爱的状态，而不是他源于教义的关于信和爱的言语的状态，除非后一种状态与前一种状态合一。然而，从关于信和爱的教义思考和说话，就是从属世人及其记忆说话，这一点仅从以下事实明显看出来：当与其他人在一起时，恶人和善人一样如此思考和说话。由于同样的原因，坏的传教士和好的传教士，或没有信的传教士和有信的传教士一样能传福音，并且表面上看，以同样的热心和情感来传。原因在于，在这种情况下，如前所述，人从他的属世人及其记忆思考和说话。但从灵思考不是从属世人及其记忆思考，而是从属灵人及其信和情感思考。仅从这一点可以清楚看出，人有两种状态，拯救人的，是后一种状态，而不是前一种状态。因为人死后就是一个灵；因此，就其灵而言，他在世上如何，离世后仍旧如何。
此外，我从大量经历中得知，教会之人就有这两种状态。因为死后，人能被带入任一状态，也实际被带入这两种状态；许多人在被带入前一种状态时，说话就像基督徒，其他人因他们的言语而以为他们是基督徒；但他们一被带回到后一种状态，就是他们自己的灵的真实状态，说话就像魔鬼灵，与他们之前说的话完全对立(参看《天堂与地狱》，491–498, 499–511节)。
由此可见当如何理解这句话：如今主被那些在教会里的人弃绝了；也就是说，尽管根据教义，主的神性被承认并相信与父的神性同等，因为教会的教义教导，“父如何，子如何，非受造，无限，永恒，全能，主，神，无别尊卑，无分先后”(参看《亚他那修信经》)；然而，他们不靠近并敬拜主及其神性，却靠近并敬拜父的神性；当他们向父祷告，求祂为了子而发怜悯时，就是这样做的；当他们说这些话时，根本没有想到主的神性，只想到其与神性分离的人性或人身，因而想到跟其他任何人的人性或人身一样的其人性或人身。那时，他们想到的不是一位神，而是两位或三位。以这种方式思想主就是弃绝祂；因为思想祂的人性或人身，不同时思想祂的神性，就是通过分离将神性排除在外；然而，它们不是两个位格，乃是一个位格，并且如同灵魂和身体那样合而为一。
我偶尔与那些在世时属天主教的灵人交谈，问他们在世时有没有思想过主的神性。他们说，每当他们从教义来看时，就思想这个主题，并且那时他们承认主的神性与父的神性同等，但撇开教义，他们就只思想祂的人性或人身，不思想祂的神性。他们被问，为什么他们说祂的人性或人身所拥有的权柄是父赐给祂的，而不是祂自己赐给祂的，因为他们承认祂的神性与父的神性同等？他们闻言转身离开，没有回答。但他们被告知，这是因为他们将祂的一切神性权柄都据为己有，而他们若不将神性与人性或人身分离，就无法做到这一点。他们已经弃绝了主，谁都能从以下事实得出这个结论，即：他们敬拜教皇而不是主，不再将任何权柄归给主。
我将在此讲述从名为本笃十四世的教皇那里听来的一桩大丑闻。他公开声称，他活在世上时相信主没有任何权柄，因为祂已经将权柄转给彼得，在彼得之后又转给他的继任者；还补充说，他相信天主教圣徒比主更有权柄，因为他们从父神那里持有它，而主完全放弃了它，并把它交给教皇；然而，祂仍必须受敬拜，因为没有这种敬拜，教皇就不会受到神圣的敬拜。这个教皇甚至死后都篡夺神性，所以几天之后被扔进入地狱。
114. Who was dead and is alive. That this signifies that He is rejected, and yet that eternal life is from Him, is evident from the signification of being dead, when said of the Lord, as denoting to be rejected (concerning which see above, n. 83), and from the signification of being alive, as denoting that eternal life is from Him in (concerning which see also above, n. 84). The Lord is said to be rejected when He is not approached and worshipped, and also when He is approached and worshipped only as to His Human, and not at the same time as to the Divine. At this day therefore He is rejected by those within the church who do not approach and worship Him, but pray to the Father to have compassion on them for the sake of the Son, although no man, or angel, can ever approach the Father, and worship Him directly, the Divine being invisible, with which no one can be conjoined in faith and love. For that which is invisible cannot come into the thought, nor, consequently, into the affection of the will; and what does not come into the thought, does not enter into the faith, for what pertains to faith must be an object of thought. So also what does not enter into the affection of the will, does not enter into the love, for the things which pertain to the love must affect a man's will, as all a man's love resides in the will (see The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem 28-35). But the Divine Human of the Lord can be thought of and enter into the faith, and thence into the affection of the will, or into the love.
[2] It is therefore evident, that there can be no conjunction with the Father unless from the Lord, and in the Lord. This the Lord Himself teaches very clearly in the Evangelists.
In John:
"No one hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath brought him forth to view" (1:18).
Again:
"Ye have neither heard the Father's voice at any time, nor seen his shape" (5:37).
In Matthew:
"Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (11:27).
In John:
I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me" (14:6).
Again:
"If ye know me, ye know my Father also; he that seeth me seeth the Father"; (Philip) "believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? believe me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me" (14:7-11);
and that the Father and the Lord are one (10:30, 38).
Again:
"I am the vine, ye are the branches; without me ye can do nothing" (15:5).
[3] It is therefore evident, that the Lord is rejected by those within the church who approach the Father directly, and pray to Him to have compassion for the sake of the Son; for these cannot but think of the Human of the Lord, as of the human of another man, thus they cannot think of His Divine in the Human, and still less of His Divine united with His Human as the soul is conjoined with the body, according to the doctrine universally received in the Christian world (see above, n. 10 and 26).
Who is there in the Christian world, that acknowledges the Divine of the Lord that desires by this acknowledgment to separate His Divine from His Human? Nevertheless, to think of the Human alone, and not at the same time of the Divine in the Human, is to regard them as separate, which is not to think of the Lord, or of both as one person, although the doctrine received in the Christian world is, that the Divine and Human of the Lord make not two persons but one person.
[4] Those who constitute the church at this day do, indeed, think of the Divine of the Lord in His Human, when they speak from the doctrine of the church; but it is quite otherwise when they think and speak within themselves apart from doctrine. But let it be known, that a man is in one state when he thinks and speaks from doctrine, and another when he thinks and speaks apart from it. When a man thinks and speaks from doctrine, he thinks and speaks from the memory of his natural man; but when he thinks and speaks unfettered by doctrine, his thought and speech are then from his spirit. For to think and speak from the spirit, is to think and speak from the interiors of one's mind, therefore, what he then speaks is his real faith. The state of a man also after death is such as were the thought and speech of his spirit within himself unfettered by doctrine, and not such as were his thought and speech from doctrine, if the latter has not become one with the former.
[5] Man has two states as to faith and love, one while he is in doctrine, and another when he is unfettered by it, but the state of his faith and love apart from doctrine saves him, and not the state of his speech concerning faith and love derived from doctrine, unless the latter has become one with the former. Man does not know this, although to think and speak from doctrine concerning faith and love, is to speak from the natural man and its memory, is evident from this circumstance alone, that both the evil and the good can think and speak in this way when they are with others. And it is for this reason that evil equally with good prelates, or prelates who have no faith equally with those who have faith, can preach the gospel, to all appearance with a similar zeal and affection. The reason is, that, in such case, a man, as stated, thinks and speaks from his natural man and its memory; but to think from the spirit is not to think from the natural man and its memory, but from the spiritual man, and from the faith and affection of this man. From this alone it is evident, that there are two states pertaining to man, and that the former state just referred to does not save him, but the latter. For after death a man is a spirit, therefore such as he was in the world as to his spirit, such does he remain after his departure out of the world.
[6] Moreover, that there are two states pertaining to the man of the church, it has been granted me to know from much experience; for after death a man can be brought into either state, and also is actually brought into both; many, when they have been brought into the former state, have spoken like Christians, and from their speech were believed by others to be Christians, but as soon as they were brought back into the latter state, the state of their own spirit, they then spoke like diabolical spirits, and in complete opposition to what they had spoken before (see the work Heaven and hell, n. 491-498, and n. 499-511).
[7] From these considerations it also is evident how it is to be understood that the Lord is repudiated at this day by those who are within the church, that is, that from doctrine indeed the Divine of the Lord must be acknowledged and believed equally as the Divine of the Father; for the doctrine of the church teaches, that, "as is the Father, so also is the Son, uncreate, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, God, Lord, neither of them greater or less, before or after the other" (see the creed of Athanasius). Notwithstanding this, however, they do not approach and worship the Lord as Divine, but they worship the Divine of the Father, as is the case when they pray to the Father that He may have compassion on them for the sake of the Son. When they use these words, they do not in the least think of the Divine of the Lord, but of His Human separate from the Divine, thus of His Human as similar to that of another man. They then think not of one God, but of two, or three. To think in this way of the Lord, is to repudiate Him; for not to think of His Divine in conjunction with His Human, which nevertheless are not two persons but one person, and make a one as soul and body, is by separation to exclude the Divine.
[8] I have occasionally talked with spirits who, whilst they lived in the world, were of the Popish religion, and I inquired whether they ever thought in the world concerning the Lord's Divine? They said that they had thought on the subject as often as they were in doctrine with insight, and that then they acknowledged His Divine to be equal with that of the Father, but apart from doctrine, they thought of His Human alone, and not of His Divine. They were asked why they say that the power, which belonged to the Human of the Lord, was given Him by the Father, and not by Himself, since they acknowledged His Divine to be equal to that of the Father? They then turned away, without answering; but they were told that the reason was, that they arrogated to themselves all His Divine power; which they could not have done, unless they had separated the Divine from the Human. That the Lord is repudiated by them, every one may conclude from this circumstance, that they worship the Pope as the Lord, and that they no longer ascribe any power to the Lord.
[9] I will here relate a great scandal uttered by the Pope who was called Benedict XIV. He declared openly that he believed, when he lived in the world, that the Lord had no power, because He had transferred it all to Peter, and thence to his successors; adding that he believed that the Romish saints have more power than the Lord, because they retain it from God the Father, but that the Lord abdicated it entirely, and conferred it on the Popes; but that still He must be worshipped, because without such worship the Pope would not be worshipped with sanctity. But this Pope, because he arrogated to himself what was Divine, even after death, was, after some days, cast, into hell.
114. Who was dead and is alive, signifies that He has been rejected, and yet eternal life is from Him. This is evident from the signification of being "dead," as being, in reference to the Lord, to have been rejected (of which see above, n. 83; also from the signification of "being alive," as being that eternal life is from Him (of which also above, n. 84. The Lord is said to have been rejected when He is not approached and worshiped; and also when He is approached and worshiped in respect to His Human only, and not at the same time in respect to the Divine; therefore He is rejected at the present time within the church by those who do not approach and worship Him, but pray to the Father to have compassion for the sake of the Son, when yet neither man nor angel can ever approach the Father and worship Him immediately; for the Divine is invisible, and with it no one can be conjoined by faith and love; since what is invisible does not come into the idea of thought, nor, consequently, into the affection of the will; and what does not fall into the idea of thought does not fall within the faith; for the things that are to be of faith must be thought of. So also what does not enter into the affection of the will does not enter into love, for what is to be of the love must affect man's will, for all the love that man has resides in the will (See The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem 28-35).
[2] But the Divine Human of the Lord does come into the idea of the thought and thus into faith, and from that into the affection of the will, that is, into love. From this it is clear that there is no conjunction with the Father except from the Lord, and in the Lord. This the Lord Himself teaches with the utmost clearness in the Evangelists, as in John:
No one hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath brought Him forth to view (John 1:18).
In the same:
Ye have neither heard the Father's voice at any time, nor seen His shape (John 5:37).
In Matthew:
No one knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son willeth to reveal Him (Matthew 11:27).
In John:
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father but through Me (John 14:6).
In the same :
If ye know Me ye know My Father also; he that seeth Me seeth the Father. Philip, believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? Believe Me, that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me (John 14:7-11).
And that the Father and the Lord are one (John 10:30, 38).
I am the vine, ye are the branches; apart from Me ye can do nothing (John 15:5).
[3] From this it can be seen that the Lord has been rejected by those within the church who approach the Father immediately and pray to Him to have compassion for the sake of the Son; for these cannot do otherwise than think of the Lord's Human as they think of the human of another man, thus they cannot think at the same time of His Divine as being in the Human, still less of His Divine as conjoined with His Human as the soul is conjoined with the body, according to the doctrine received throughout the universal Christian world (See above, n. 10, 26). Who is there in the Christian world, acknowledging the Divinity of the Lord, that is willing to be one who would place the Lord's Divine outside of His Human? When yet to think of the Human only, and not at the same time of His Divine in the Human, is to view the two as separated, which is not to view the Lord, nor the two as one person; and yet the doctrine received throughout Christendom is, that the Divine and the Human of the Lord are not two persons but a single person.
[4] It is true that men of the church at this day, when they speak from the doctrine of the church think of the Divine of the Lord in His Human; but when they think and speak by themselves aside from doctrine, it is altogether otherwise. But be it known, that man is in one state when he is thinking and speaking from doctrine, and in another when he is thinking and speaking aside from doctrine. When man is thinking and speaking from doctrine, his thought and speech are from the memory of his natural man; but when he is thinking and speaking aside from doctrine, his thought and speech are from his spirit; for to think and speak from the spirit, is to think and speak from the interiors of one's mind, from which is his real faith. Moreover, man's state after death becomes such as were the thought and speech of his spirit by himself aside from doctrine, and not such as they were from doctrine, if the latter was not one with the former.
[5] Man does not know that he has two states in respect to faith and love; one when in doctrine and another aside from doctrine; but that the state of his faith and love aside from doctrine is what saves him, and not the state of his speech respecting faith and love from doctrine, unless the latter state makes one with the former. Yet to think and speak from doctrine respecting faith and love is to speak from the natural man and its memory, as is evident merely from this, that the evil, when with others, can think and speak thus equally with the good. For the same reason also evil preachers equally with good, or preachers that have no faith equally with those that have faith, can preach the Gospel, and, to appearance, with similar zeal and affection. This is because the man, as has been said, then thinks and speaks from his natural man and its memory. But to think from one's spirit is not to think from the natural man and its memory, but from the spiritual man, and from its faith and affection. Merely from this it is clear that man has two states, and that it is the latter state, not the former, that saves him; for man after death is a spirit; therefore such as he was in the world in respect to his spirit, such he remains after his departure out of the world.
[6] Moreover, it has been given me to know from much experience that the man of the church has these two states. For after death, man can be let into either state, and is also actually let into both. Many of these, when they have been let into the former state, have spoken like Christians, and from such speech have been believed by others to be Christians; but as soon as they were remitted into the latter state, which was the real state of their spirit they spoke like devilish spirits, and altogether in opposition to what they had spoken before (See the work on Heaven and Hell 491-498, 499-511).
[7] From this it can be seen how the statement is to be understood that the Lord has been at this day rejected by those within the church; namely, that although it is held from doctrine that the Divine of the Lord must be acknowledged and believed in the same degree as the Divine of the Father, for the doctrine of the church teaches that "As is the Father so also is the Son, uncreate, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, God, Lord, and neither of them greater or less, before or after the other" (See the Creed of Athanasius); yet they do not approach and worship the Lord and His Divine, but the Divine of the Father; this they do when they pray to the Father to have mercy for the sake of the Son; and when they say this they do not think at all of the Divine of the Lord, but they think of His Human as separated from the Divine, thus of His Human as similar to the human of any other man; and then they also think not of one God, but of two, or three. To think in this way of the Lord is to reject Him; for by not thinking of His Divine at the same time that they think of His Human, by the separation they thrust out the Divine. Yet these are not two, but one person, and make one as soul and body do.
[8] I once spoke with spirits who when they lived in the world were of the popish religion, and I asked whether in the world they ever thought about the Divine of the Lord? They said that they thought about it whenever they saw from doctrine, and that they then acknowledged His Divine to be equal with the Divine of the Father, but that apart from doctrine, they thought of His Human only, and not of His Divine. They were asked why they say that the power which His Human had was given to it by the Father and not by Himself, since they acknowledged His Divine to be equal with that of the Father? At this they turned away, making no answer. But it was said to them, that it was because they transferred to themselves all His Divine power, and that they could not have done this unless they had separated the Divine from the Human. That with them the Lord has been rejected, everyone may conclude from this, that they worship the pope instead of the Lord, and that they no longer attribute any power to the Lord.
[9] I will here also mention a great scandal heard from the pope called Benedict XIV. He openly declared that when he lived in the world he believed that the Lord had no power, because He had transferred it all to Peter, and after him to his successors; adding his belief that their saints have more power than the Lord, because they hold it from God the Father, while the Lord resigned it all and gave it to the popes; yet that He is still to be worshiped, because otherwise the pope is not worshiped with sanctity. But because this pope even after death claimed the Divine for himself, after a few days he was cast into hell.
114. "Qui fuit mortuus et vivit." - Quod significet quod rejectus et tamen ab Ipso vita aeterna, constat ex significatione "mortuus" esse, cum de Domino, quod sit rejectus esse (de qua supra, n. 83); et ex significatione "vivere", quod sit quod ab Ipso vita aeterna (de qua etiam supra, n. 84). Dominus rejectus dicitur cum non aditur et colitur, et quoque dum aditur et colitur solum quoad Humanum suum et non simul quoad Divinum; quare rejicitur hodie intra ecclesiam ab illis qui non Ipsum adeunt et colunt, sed orant Patrem ut misereatur propter Filium; cum tamen nusquam aliquis homo nec angelus potest adire Patrem, et Ipsum immediate colere, est enim Divinum invisibile, cum quo nemo conjungi fide et amore potest: quod enim invisibile est, hoc non cadit in ideam cogitationis, et ideo nec in affectionem voluntatis; et quod non cadit in ideam cogitationis, hoc nec cadit in fidem, nam quae fidei erunt, cogitabuntur; et quoque quod non intrat in affectionem voluntatis, hoc nec intrat in amorem, nam quae amoris erunt, afficient voluntatem hominis, in hac enim residet omnis amor qui est homini (videatur Doctrina Novae Hierosolymae, n. 28-35).
[2] At Divinum Humanum Domini cadit in ideam cogitationis et sic in fidem, et inde in affectionem voluntatis seu amorem. Inde patet quod nulla conjunctio sit cum Patre nisi a Domino et in Domino. Hoc perquam clare docet Ipse Dominus apud Evangelistas:
- Apud Johannem,
"Deum nemo vidit unquam; Unigenitus Filius qui in sinu Patris est, Ipse exposuit" (1:18);
apud eundem,
"Neque vocem Patris audivistis unquam, neque speciem Ipsius vidistis" (5:37);
apud Matthaeum
"Nemo cognoscit Patrem nisi Filius, et cui Filius vult revelare" (11:27);
apud Johannem,
"Ego sum via, veritas, et vita; nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per Me" (14:6);
apud eundem,
"Si Me cognoscitis, etiam Patrem meum cognoscitis;... is qui Me videt, videt Patrem." ...Philippe, "Nonne credis quod Ego in Patre et Pater in Me? ...Credite Mihi quod Ego in Patre, et Pater in Me" (14:7-11);
et quod
Pater et Dominus unum sint (cap. 10:30,, 38);
apud eundem,
"Ego sum, Vitis, vos palmites;... sine Me non potestis facere quicquam" (15:5).
[3] Inde constare potest quod Dominus rejectus sit ab illis intra ecclesiam qui immediate adeunt Patrem, et Ipsum orant ut misereatur propter Filium; hi enim non aliter possunt quam cogitare de Humano Domini sicut de humano alius hominis, ita non simul de Divino Ipsius in Humano, minus de Divino Ipsius conjuncto Humano Ipsius sicut conjuncta est anima corpori, secundum doctrinam in universo Christiano orbe receptam (videatur supra, n. 10 et 26). Quis usquam in Christiano orbe, qui Divinum Domini agnoscit, talis vult esse ut Divinum Ipsius ponat extra Humanum Ipsius? cum tamen cogitare de solo Humano et non simul de Divino Ipsius in Humano, est intueri illa separata, quod non est intueri Dominum, nec utrumque ut unam Personam; cum tamen doctrina in Christianismo recepta etiam est, quod Divinum et Humanum Domini non sint duo sed unica Persona.
[4] Homines ecclesiae hodie quidem cogitant de Divino Domini in Humano Ipsius, cum ex doctrina ecclesiae loquuntur; at prorsus aliter dum cogitant et secum loquuntur extra doctrinam. Sed sciatur quod alius status sit homini cum ex doctrina cogitat et loquitur, et alius cum extra doctrinam. Dum ex doctrina cogitat et loquitur, tunc ex memoria naturalis sui hominis cogitat et loquitur; at cum extra doctrinam, tunc ex spiritu suo; nam ex spiritu cogitare et loqui, est ex interioribus mentis suae, unde est ipsa fides ejus. Hominis etiam status post mortem fit qualis ejus spiritus cogitatio et loquela secum fuit extra doctrinam, et non qualis ejus cogitatio et loquela fuit ex doctrina, si non haec una fuerit cum illa.
[5] Quod bini status homini quoad fidem et amorem sint, unus dum in doctrina est et alter cum extra doctrinam, at quod status ejus fidei et amoris extra doctrinam salvet illum, et non status ejus loquelae de fide et amore cum ex doctrina nisi hic unum faciat cum illo, homo nescit; cum tamen cogitare et loqui ex doctrina de fide et amore est loqui ex naturali homine et ejus memoria, ut constare potest ex eo solo, quod aeque mali quam boni ita cogitare et loqui possint quando cum aliis; quapropter etiam antistites mali aeque ac boni, seu antistites qui nullam fidem habent aeque ac qui fidem habent, possunt praedicare Evangelium cum simili ad apparentiam zelo et affectione. Causa est, quia tunc homo, ut dictum est, ex suo naturali homine et ejus memoria cogitat et loquitur; at cogitare ex suo spiritu non est ex naturali homine et ejus memoria, sed ex spirituali homine et hujus fide et affectione. Ex hoc solum constare potest quod bini status sint homini, et quod prior status non salvet illum, sed posterior: est enim homo post mortem spiritus; ergo qualis homo fuit in mundo quoad spiritum, talis manet post excessum e mundo.
[6] Praeterea, quod bini illi status homini ecclesiae sint, ex multa experientia datum est scire; homo enim post mortem mitti potest in utrumque statum, et quoque actualiter in utrumque mittitur: multi ex illis, cum missi sunt in priorem statum, locuti sunt sicut Christiani, et ex loquela illa ab aliis crediti sunt quod Christiani essent; sed ut primum in Statum posteriorem, qui proprius erat spiritus eorum, remissi sunt, tunc locuti sunt sicut spiritus diabolici, et prorsus contra illa quae prius (videatur in opere De Caelo et Inferno 491-498, et 499-511).
[7] Ex his constare potest quomodo etiam intelligendum est quod Dominus rejectus sit hodie ab illis qui intra ecclesiam: nempe, quod quidem ex doctrina sit quod agnoscendum et credendum sit Divinum Domini in eodem gradu quo Divinum Patris, nam docet doctrina quod Sicut est Pater, etiam est Filius increatus, infinitus, aeternus, omnipotens, Deus, Dominus, ac nemo Eorum maximus et minimus, primus et ultimus; (videatur Symbolum Athanasii;) et usque tamen non adeunt et colunt Dominum et Ipsius Divinum, sed Patris; quod fit dum orant Patrem ut misereatur propter Filium; et cum hoc dicunt, prorsus non cogitant de Divino Domini, sed de Humano Ipsius separato a Divino, ita de Humano Ipsius simili cum humano alterius hominis; et quoque simul tunc non de uno Deo sed de duobus aut tribus. Ita cogitare de Domino est rejicere Ipsum, nam non simul cogitare de Divino Ipsius cum de Humano Ipsius, per separationem tunc excludunt Divinum; quod tamen non duo sunt sed una Persona, ac unum faciunt sicut anima et corpus.
[8] Locutus sum quondam cum spiritibus, qui dum vixerunt in mundo, fuerunt ex religione Pontificia; et quaesivi num in mundo usquam cogitaverint de Divino Domini. Dixerunt quod cogitaverint quoties in doctrina cum visu essent, et quod tunc agnoverint Divinum Ipsius par Divino Patris; at cum extra doctrinam, quod solum de Humano Ipsius et non de Divino. Quaerebantur cur dicunt quod potestas, quae fuit Humano Ipsius, data sit ei a Patre et non a Se Ipso, quia Divinum Ipsius agnoverunt par Divino Patris: tunc averterunt se, nihil respondentes. Sed dictum illis est quod causa fuerit quia transtulerunt in se omnem Divinam Ipsius potestatem, quod non potuissent nisi separavissent. Quod Dominus apud hos rejectus sit quisque potest ex eo concludere, quod pro Domino colant Papam, et quod nullam potestatem Domino amplius tribuant.
[9] Hic etiam referre velim magnum scandalum auditum a Papa qui vocatus Benedictus XIV dixit aperte quod crediderit, cum in mundo vixit, quod Domino nulla potestas sit, quia omnem transtulit in Petrum et inde in ejus successores; addens quod crediderit quod sancti eorum plus potestatis habeant quam Dominus, quia illi a Deo Patre illam retinent; at quod Dominus omnem Sibi abdicaverit et dederit Pontificibus; sed quod usque colendus sit, quia absque eo non sancte colitur Papa. Sed is quia Divinum sibi arrogavit etiam post mortem, post aliquot dies in infernum conjectus est.