Page 28 - A critical exposition of Jung's theory of alchemy

Science and of Theology.
Perhaps more to the point, as Jung admits, the term stone as in

‘corner stone’ was used in the New Testament apparently as a reference
to Christ or the church (i.e. Mat. 21:42-4, Mark 12: 10, Luke 20: 17-18,
Acts 4: 10-11, Eph. 2: 20). The term ‘living stones’ was used of
believers (1 Pet 2: 4-8). Revelations (2: 17) mentions a “white stone” in
conjunction with a “hidden manna”. So consequently it is not really
surprising that alchemists saw a possible correspondence between their
wondrous Stone and the Stone of Christian doctrine. Such
correspondence does not necessarily need an archetypal explanation10.

The use and spread of the Christ Lapis parallel also require more
historical work to explore its ramifications, although Jung suggests that
alchemy’s movement from ascent to descent and its conflict with the
Christian movement of descent and ascent, would eventually lead to
theological problems for alchemists, and thus “those who identified the
lapis absolutely with Christ stopped working in the laboratory, and those
who preferred laboratory work slowly gave up their mystical language”
(CW 14:221-3). So the alchemists “made the world conscious that the
revelation was neither complete nor final” and thus instigated the
division between faith and knowledge (CW 14: 254-5).

The Philosophers’ Stone is not the only alchemical mandala
according to Jung, and there are others such as the Ouroboros, squaring
the circle (CW 12 124-6, 128-), and the quaternity or the recurrence of
the number four. We are never told why there might be so many
different and recurrent mandalas, or if some might be more appropriate
for some stages of the work than others.

Projection and Participation

As we have seen, Jung postulated that alchemy was a kind of
collective dream acting in unconscious compensation to the
consciousness produced by Christianity. “Life calls not for perfection
but completeness” (CW 12: 159). “Alchemy”, he writes, “endeavours to
fill in the gaps left open by the Christian tension of opposites” (ibid: 23).

10. Jung seems to miss the point on this issue, arguing that Christ is not the
cause of the Philosophers’ Stone (CW 14: 450). The Biblical comparison may
not be the source of the Philosophers’ Stone, but it may well have influenced
the possibility of the parallel between Christ and the Lapis being acceptable.

24