Commentary

 

Memorable Occurrences in Swedenborg's Writings

This list of Memorable Occurrences in Swedenborg's Writings was originally compiled by W. C. Henderson in 1960 but has since been updated.

From Swedenborg's Works

 

Apocalypse Revealed #386

Study this Passage

  
/ 962  
  

386. To this I will append the following account:

When I once looked about in the spiritual world, I heard what sounded like the gnashing of teeth, and like a thumping, too, intermixed with a harsh noise. So I asked what I was hearing, and the angels who were with me said, "There are clubs, which we call taverns, where people argue with each other. This is the way their debates sound at a distance, but close by they sound only like arguments.

I went over and saw cottages constructed of interwoven rushes, with clay for mortar. I wanted to look through a window, but there wasn't one. I looked for a window because I was not permitted to enter through the door, as light from heaven would then flow in and befuddle the people.

Suddenly, however, a window materialized on the right side, and I heard the people complain then that everything had gone dark. But shortly a window materialized on the left side, with the window on the right side closing, and then the darkness was by degrees dispelled, and they saw each other in a state of light. After that I was allowed to enter through the door and listen.

There was a table in the middle of the room, with benches surrounding it, yet the people all seemed to me to be standing on the benches, and to be arguing sharply with each other about faith and charity, the people on one side saying that faith was the principal tenet of the church, and on the other side that charity was.

Those who made faith the principal tenet said, "Do we not deal with God as regards faith, and with people as regards charity? Is not faith therefore something heavenly, and charity something earthly? Are we not saved by what is heavenly, and not by anything earthly?

"Furthermore, cannot God confer faith from heaven, because it is something heavenly, and must not a person confer on himself charity, because it is something earthly? What a person confers on himself is unrelated to the church and is therefore not saving. Can works that are called works of charity justify anyone in that case before God?

"Believe us when we say that by faith alone we are not only justified but also sanctified, provided our faith is not contaminated by hopes for merit that spring up from works of charity."

And so on.

[2] In reply, the people who made charity the principal tenet of the church sharply refuted them, saying that charity is saving, and not faith. "Does not God hold all people dear and will good to all? How can God do this except through the agency of people? Does God enable people to speak with one another only about matters having to do with faith, and not enable them to do things for one another that are matters of charity?

"Do you not see how absurdly you spoke about charity, saying that it is something earthly? Charity is something heavenly, and because you do not do the good pertaining to charity, your faith is earthly. How do you receive faith other than as a log or rock? You say that it is simply by hearing the Word, but how can the Word do anything simply by being heard, and how can it have any effect on a log or rock? Perhaps you are animated without being aware of it. However, what is that animation except to enable you to say that faith alone is saving? Yet what that faith is, and what saving faith is, you do not know."

[3] But one among them then arose, whom an angel speaking with me called a syncretist. 1 He took the cap from his head and placed it on the table, but quickly replaced it, as he was bald. He said, "Listen, you are all wrong. The truth is that faith is spiritual, and charity moral; but still they are conjoined, and they are conjoined by the Word, by the Holy Spirit, and by the effect these have, without the person's knowing. Indeed, the person may be said to be a compliant form, but one in which the person has no part.

"I have thought to myself a long time about this, and I eventually found that God can enable a person to receive a faith that is spiritual, but cannot move him to a charity that is spiritual without his being like a pillar of salt."

[4] When he said this, the people caught up in faith alone applauded, while those espousing charity booed. And the latter said with annoyance, "Listen, my friend, you do not know that a moral life can be spiritual, and that it can be merely natural - being a moral life that is spiritual in the case of people who do good from the Lord, though doing it as if of themselves, and being a moral life that is merely natural in the case of people who do good from hell, though doing it as if of themselves."

[5] I said before that the arguing sounded like the gnashing of teeth, and like a thumping, too, intermixed with a harsh noise. The particular arguing that sounded like the gnashing of teeth came from those who were espousing faith alone; the arguing that sounded like a thumping came from those who were espousing charity alone; and the intermixed harsh noise came from the syncretist. I heard their voices at a distance thus because they had all argued in the world, but did not refrain from any evil and so did not do any moral good that was spiritual. Moreover, they also did not know at all that the totality of faith is truth, and that the totality of charity is goodness, and that truth without goodness is not truth in spirit, and that goodness without truth is not goodness in spirit; thus that one must form the other.

The reason everything became dark when a window materialized on the right side is that light flowing in from heaven on that side affects the will. And a state of light returned when the window on the right side closed and a window materialized on the left side, because light flowing in from heaven on the left side affects the intellect, and everyone can be in the light of heaven as regards his intellect, provided his will is closed as regards the evil in him.

Footnotes:

1. An espouser of syncretism, a system of belief that attempts to reconcile differing religious and philosophic positions. The term was applied especially to the views of George Calixtus, a Lutheran theologian in the 17th century, and to his followers.

  
/ 962  
  

Many thanks to the General Church of the New Jerusalem, and to Rev. N.B. Rogers, translator, for the permission to use this translation.

From Swedenborg's Works

 

Conjugial Love #233

Study this Passage

  
/ 535  
  

233. The third account:

After this, one of the angels said, "Follow me to the place where they are crying out, 'Oh, how wise!'" And he added, "You will see human monstrosities. The faces and bodies you see will be like those of a human being, and yet they are not human."

So I said, "Are they animals, then?"

The angel replied, "No, they are not animals, but animal-like. For they are people who cannot see at all whether truth is true or not, and yet whatever they wish they can make to be true. Among us, people like that are called confirmers."

We then followed the clamor and came to the place. And lo, we found a group of men surrounded by a crowd of people, and in the crowd some people of noble lineage. The men were confirming whatever the latter said and agreeing with them with such manifest accord that when they heard it, they turned to each other and said, "Oh, how wise!"

[2] However, the angel said to me, "Let us not go over to them but instead call one of them out of the group."

So we called one of them to us, and going aside with him, we talked about various matters. And he confirmed each point so thoroughly that they all appeared entirely as true.

We then asked him whether he could also confirm the converse of these. He said that he could, just as well as he did the previous ones. At which point he said openly and from the heart, "What is truth? Is there any truth in the nature of things other than what a person makes true? Say to me anything you please and I will make it to be true."

So I said, "Make this true, that faith is everything in the church." And he did so, so cleverly and skillfully that some learned bystanders looked on in admiration and applauded. I asked him next to make it true that charity is everything in the church, which he did, and afterwards that charity is nothing in the church. And he dressed up both propositions and arrayed them in such verisimilitudes that the bystanders looked at each other and said, "Isn't he wise!"

But I said, "Do you not know that to live rightly is charity, and to believe rightly is faith? If anyone lives rightly, does he not also believe rightly? Thus showing that faith is connected with charity, and charity with faith? Do you not see that this is true?"

He replied, "I will make it true and then I will see." And having done it he said, "Now I see." But shortly he made the converse of it to be true, and then he said, "I see as well that this is true."

We chuckled at this and said, "But are these not contradictory conclusions? How can you see two contrary conclusions as true?"

Nettled by our response, he replied, "You are wrong. Both conclusions are true, since truth is only what a person makes true."

[3] Standing nearby was someone who in the world had been an ambassador of the highest rank. He marveled at this and said, "I recognize that something of this sort goes on in the world, but still you are insane. Make it to be true, if you can, that light is darkness, and darkness light."

To which he replied, "I will do it easily. What are light and darkness but conditions of the eye? Does light not turn to darkness when the eye comes in out of bright sunshine? Or when it gazes intently at the sun? Who does not know that the state of the eye then changes and that light consequently appears as darkness? And conversely, that when the condition of the eye recovers, the darkness appears as light?

"Does an owl not see the darkness of night as the light of day, and the light of day as the darkness of night? Does it not see the sun itself as a dark and shadowy orb? If a person had eyes like an owl's, what would he call light and what would he call darkness?

"What then is light but a condition of the eye? And if it is a condition of the eye, is not light darkness and darkness light? Consequently the one proposition is true and the other is true."

[4] After that the ambassador asked him to make it to be true that a raven is white and not black.

To which he replied, "I will do this easily, too. Take a needle or razor," he said, "and open up the feathers or quills of a raven. Are they not white inside? Then remove the feathers and quills and look at the raven's skin. Is it not white? What is the blackness surrounding it but an opaqueness to light, which is hardly a basis on which to judge the raven's color? If you do not know that blackness is only an absence of light, ask experts in the science of optics and they will tell you. Or grind a piece of black stone or black glass into a fine powder, and you will see that the powder is white."

"But," said the ambassador, "does a raven look black to the eye?"

"Perhaps," replied this confirmer of ours, "but as a human being, are you willing to base what you think on an appearance? You may indeed speak in accordance with the appearance and say that a raven is black, but you cannot think it. As for example, you may speak in accordance with the appearance and say that the sun rises, travels and sets, but as a human being you cannot think it, because the sun stands still and it is the earth that moves. It is the same with the raven. An appearance is only an appearance. Say what you will, a raven is totally and utterly white. It even turns white when it grows old, as I have observed."

[5] We then asked him to tell us honestly whether he was joking or whether he really believed that there is no truth but what a person makes true. And he answered, "I swear that I believe it."

After that the ambassador asked him whether he could make it true that he was insane. To which he said, "I could, but I do not want to. Who is not insane?"

This total confirmer was afterwards sent to some angels for them to examine and determine what sort of person he was. And having examined him, they said he possessed not even a grain of understanding, because everything that exists above the level of reason in him was closed up, and only that which is below the level of reason was open.

"Above the level of reason," they said, "is the light of heaven, and below the level of reason is the light of nature. And the light of nature is such that it can confirm whatever it pleases. However, if the light of heaven does not flow into the light of nature, a person does not see whether any truth is true, and so neither whether any falsity is false. An ability to see both what is true and what is false results from the presence of light from heaven in the light of nature, and the light of heaven comes from the God of heaven, who is the Lord.

"This total confirmer is therefore neither human nor animal, but animal-like."

[6] I asked the angel with me about the fate of people like that and whether it was possible for them to be among the living, since a person has life from the light of heaven, and from it comes his intellect. And the angel said that when people of this sort are by themselves, they are incapable of thought and so have nothing to say, but stand as mute as machines, as though in a deep sleep; but as soon as something catches their ears, they awaken. He added also that people become like that who are inmostly evil. "The light of heaven cannot flow into them from above," he said, "but only some spiritual element through the world, from which they have an ability to confirm."

[7] After he said this, I heard the voice of one of the angels who had examined the man, calling to me and saying, "From what you have heard draw an overall conclusion."

So I drew the following conclusion: An ability to confirm whatever one pleases is not the mark of an intelligent person; rather, the mark of an intelligent person is to be able to see that truth is true and falsity false, and to confirm that.

I afterwards looked over at the gathering where the confirmers stood and where the crowd surrounding them was beginning to cry out, "Oh, how wise!" And suddenly a dusky cloud enveloped them, with screech owls and bats flitting about in the cloud.

It was then explained to me, "The owls and bats flitting about in the dusky cloud are correspondent forms and thus manifestations of their thoughts. For in this world, confirmations of falsities to the point that they appear as truths are represented under the forms of birds of the night, whose eyes are lit up with an illusory light from within by which they see objects in darkness as though in light. This is the kind of illusory spiritual light had by those who confirm falsities to the point that they appear as truths, and who afterwards say and believe they are truths. They all possess a kind of after-sight and not any prior sight."

  
/ 535  
  

Many thanks to the General Church of the New Jerusalem, and to Rev. N.B. Rogers, translator, for the permission to use this translation.