New Christian Bible Study

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

 

True Christian Religion #35

Study this Passage

  
/ 853  
  

35. I shall here add the following account of an experience. 1

Once I was amazed at the huge number of people who regard nature as the source of creation, and therefore of everything beneath or above the sun. When they see anything they say, and they give it heartfelt acknowledgment, 'Surely this is due to nature'; and when they are asked why, they say that this is due to nature rather than to God, when they still sometimes follow the usual view that God created nature, so that they could just as well say that what they see is due to God rather than to nature, they reply muttering almost inaudibly to themselves, 'What is God but nature?' This false belief that nature created the universe, a piece of madness they take for wisdom, makes them so puffed up that they look on all who acknowledge that God created the universe as ants, creeping along the ground, treading a worn path; and some as butterflies flying around in the air. They call their dogmas dreams, because they see things the others cannot, and they say: 'Who has ever seen God? We can all see nature.'

[2] While I was wondering at the immense number of such people, an angel came and stood beside me, saying 'What are you thinking about?'

I replied, 'How many people there are who believe that nature produces itself and is therefore the creator of the universe.'

'The whole of hell,' the angel told me, 'is composed of such people; there they are called satans and devils. Those who have formed a firm belief in nature and consequently denied the existence of God are satans; those who have spent their lives in crimes and thus banished from their hearts any acknowledgment of God are devils. But I will take you to the schools in the south-western quarter where such people who are not yet in hell live.'

So he took me by the hand and guided me. I saw some cottages containing schools and one building in their midst which seemed to be their headquarters. It was built of pitch-black stones coated with glassy plates giving the appearance of glittering gold and silver, rather like the stones called selenites or mica. Here and there were interspersed shining shells.

[3] We went up to this building and knocked. Someone quickly opened the door and made us welcome. He hurried to a table and brought us four books, saying: 'These books contain the wisdom which the majority of kingdoms approve to-day. This book contains the wisdom favoured by many in France, this by many in Germany, this by some in Holland, and this by some in Britain.' He went on: 'If you like to watch, I will make these four books shine before your eyes.' Then he poured forth and enveloped the books in the glory of his own reputation, so that at once the books shone as it were with light. But this light immediately vanished from our sight.

We asked him then what he was now writing. He replied that at present he was bringing out of his stores and displaying the very kernel of wisdom. This could by summarised as: (1) Whether nature is due to life, or life to nature; (2) whether a centre is due to an expanse, or an expanse to a centre; (3) about the centre and expanse of nature and life.

[4] So saying he sat down again at the table, while we strolled around his spacious school. He had a candle on the table, because there was no sunlight there, but only moonlight. What surprised me was that the candle seemed to roam about and cast its light; but because the wick was not trimmed it gave little light. While he was writing, we saw images of different shapes flying up from the table on to the walls. In that night-time moonlight they looked like beautiful birds from India. But as soon as we opened the door, in the sunlight of daytime they looked like nocturnal birds with net-like wings. They were apparent truths turned into fallacies by adducing proofs which he had ingeniously linked into coherent series.

[5] After seeing this we approached the table and asked him what he was now writing.

'My first proposition:' he said, 'whether nature is due to life or life to nature.' He remarked that on this point he could prove either proposition and make it appear true. But because of some lurking fear which was not explicit, he dare only prove that nature is due to life, that is to say, comes from life, and not the reverse, that life is due to, that is, comes from nature.

We asked politely what was the lurking fear he could not make explicit.

He replied that it was the fear of being called by the clergy a nature-worshipper and so an atheist, and by the laity a person of unsound mind, because both parties are either believers from blind faith or people who see that it is so by studying supporting arguments.

[6] Then our zealous indignation for the truth got the better of us and we addressed him thus: 'My friend, you are quite wrong. Your wisdom, which is no more than an ingenuity of style, has led you astray, and your desire for reputation has induced you to prove what you do not believe. Do you not know that the human mind is capable of being raised above the objects of the senses, that is to say, the thoughts engendered by the bodily senses; and when it is so raised it can see the products of life at a higher level and the products of nature below? What is life but love and wisdom? And what is nature but a receiver of love and wisdom, a means to bring about their effects or purposes? Can these be one, except as principal and instrumental? Light surely cannot be one with the eye, nor sound with the ear. What is the cause of these senses if not life, and what is the cause of their shapes if not nature? What is the human body but an organ for receiving life? Are not all its parts organically constructed to produce what love wills and the understanding thinks? Surely the body's organs spring from nature, but love and thought spring from life. Are these not quite distinct from each other? Raise the view of your mind a little higher, and you will see that emotion and thought are due to life; that emotion is due to love and thought to wisdom, and both of them are due to life, for, as has been said before, love and wisdom constitute life. If you raise your intellectual faculty a little higher still, you will see that love and wisdom could not exist unless somewhere they had a source, and that this source is Love Itself and Wisdom Itself, therefore Life Itself. These are God, who is the source of nature.'

[7] Afterwards we talked with him about his second proposition, whether the centre is due to the expanse, or the expanse to the centre. We asked his reasons for discussing this subject. He replied that it was in order to enable him to reach a conclusion about the centre and expanse of nature and life, which one was the source of the other. When we asked his opinion, he made the same reply as before, that he could prove either proposition, but for fear of losing his reputation he proved that the expanse was due to, that is to say, was the source of the centre. 'All the same,' he said, 'I know that something existed before there was a sun, and this was distributed throughout the expanse, and this of itself reduced itself to order, so creating a centre.'

[8] The zeal of our indignation made us address him again, saying: 'My friend, you are mad.' On hearing this he drew his chair back from the table and looked fearfully at us, but then listened with a smile on his face. 'What could be more crazy, 'we went on, 'than to say the centre is due to the expanse? We take your centre to mean the sun, and your expanse to be the universe; so you hold that the universe came into existence without the sun, do you? Surely the sun produces nature and all its properties, which are solely dependent upon the light and heat radiated by the sun and propagated through atmospheres? Where could these have been before there was a sun? We will explain their origin later on in the discussion. Are not the atmospheres, and everything on earth, like surfaces, the centre of which is the sun? What would become of them all without the sun? Could they last a single instant? And what of them all before there was a sun? Could they have come into existence? Is not subsistence continuous coming into existence? Since therefore the subsistence of everything in nature depends upon the sun, so must their coming into existence. Everyone can see this and acknowledge it from personal experience.

[9] Does not what is later in order subsist, just as it comes into existence, from what is earlier? If the surface were earlier and the centre later, should we not have what is earlier subsisting from what is later - something which is contrary to the laws of order? How can the later produce the earlier, or the more outward the more inward, or the grosser the purer? How then could the surfaces making up an expanse produce a centre? Anyone can see that this is contrary to the laws of nature. We have drawn these proofs from rational analysis to show that the expanse is produced by the centre, and not the reverse, although everyone who thinks correctly can see this for himself without these proofs. You said that the expanse of its own accord came together to form a centre. Did this happen by chance, that everything fell into such a wonderful and amazing order, so that one thing should be on account of the next, and every single thing on account of human beings and their everlasting life? Can nature inspired by some love and working through some wisdom have ends in view, foresee causes and so provide effects to bring such things about in due order? Can nature turn human beings into angels, build a heaven of them, and make its inhabitants live for ever? Accept these propositions and think them over; your idea of nature begetting nature will collapse.'

[10] After this we asked him what he had thought, and still did, about his third proposition, about the centre and expanse of nature and life. Did he believe that the centre and expanse of life were the same as the centre and expanse of nature?

He said that here he hesitated. He had previously believed that the inward activity of nature was life and that love and wisdom, which are the essential components of human life, come from this source. It is produced by the heat and light coming from the fire of the sun and transmitted through atmospheres. But now as the result of what he had heard about people living after death he was in doubt, a doubt which alternately lifted up and depressed his mind. When it was lifted up, he acknowledged a centre which had previously been quite unknown to him; when it was depressed he saw a centre which he thought to be the only one. Life was from the centre previously unknown to him, and nature from the centre he thought to be the only one, each centre being surrounded by an expanse.

[11] We said we approved of that, so long as he was willing to view the centre and expanse of nature from the centre and expanse of life, and not the reverse. We taught him that above the heaven of the angels there is a Sun which is pure love; it appears fiery, like the sun in the world, and the heat radiated from it is the source of will and love among angels and human beings; the light radiating from it produces their understanding and wisdom. Everything from this source is called spiritual; but the radiation from the sun of the natural world is a container or receiver of life; this is what we call natural. The expanse proper to the centre of life is called the spiritual world, and the expanse proper to the centre of nature is called the natural world, which owes its subsistence to its own sun. Now because space and time cannot be predicated of love and wisdom, but there are states instead, it follows that the expanse surrounding the sun of the heaven of angels is not a spatial extension, though it is present in the extension to which the natural sun belongs, and with the living things there, depending upon their ability to receive them, and this is determined by their forms and states.

[12] But then he asked, 'What is the origin of fire in the sun of the world, the natural sun?'

We replied that it was from the sun of the heaven of angels, which is not fire, but the Divine Love most nearly radiating from God, who is in its midst. Since he found this surprising, we gave this explanation: 'Love in its essence is spiritual fire; that is why "fire" in the spiritual sense of the Word stands for love. That is why priests in church pray that heavenly fire may fill their hearts, meaning love. The fire on the altar and the fire of the lampstand in the Tabernacle of the Israelites was nothing but a representation of Divine Love. The heat of the blood, or the vital heat of human beings, and of animals in general, comes from no other source than the love which makes up their life. That is why people become warm, grow hot and burst into flame, when their love is raised to zeal, or is aroused to anger and rage. Therefore the fact that spiritual heat, being love, produces natural heat in human beings, to such an extent as to fire and inflame their faces and bodies, can serve as a proof that the fire of the natural sun arose from no other source than the fire of the spiritual sun, which is Divine love.

[13] Now because the expanse arises from the centre, and not the reverse, as we said before, and the centre of life, which is the sun of the heaven of angels, is the Divine Love most nearly radiating from God, who is in the midst of that sun; and because this is the origin of the expanse deriving from that centre, which is called the spiritual world; and because that sun brought into being the sun of the world, and also the expanse which is called the natural world, it is plain that the universe was created by God.'

After this we went away, and he accompanied us out of the courtyard of his school, speaking with us about heaven and hell, and about Divine guidance, showing new powers of sagacity.

Footnotes:

1. This is repeated from Conjugial Love 380.

  
/ 853  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Society for the permission to use this translation.

From Swedenborg's Works

 

True Christian Religion #506

Study this Passage

  
/ 853  
  

506. The fourth experience. 1

I saw in the spiritual world two flocks, one of goats, the other of sheep. I wondered who they were, since I knew that when animals are seen in the spiritual world, they are not animals, but correspondences of the affections and from these the thoughts of those who are there. So I went nearer, and as I approached, the likenesses of animals disappeared, and I saw human beings in their place. It became clear that those who made up the flock of goats were those who had convinced themselves of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and those who made up the flock of sheep were those who believed that charity and faith are one, just as good and truth are one.

[2] Then I spoke with those who had appeared like goats and said: 'Why have you met together?' Most were clergy who had prided themselves on their reputation for learning, because they knew the secrets of justification by faith alone.

They said that they had met together to hold a council, because they had heard that Paul's statement that man is justified by faith without the deeds prescribed by the law (Romans 3:28) had not been properly understood. For by faith there Paul did not mean the faith of the present-day church, in three Divine persons from eternity, but faith in the Lord God, the Saviour Jesus Christ. By the deeds prescribed by the law he did not mean the deeds prescribed by the law of the Ten Commandments, but those prescribed for the Jews by the law of Moses. Thus from those few words people had come to two monstrously false conclusions by incorrect interpretation: that faith meant the faith of the present-day church, and the deeds meant those prescribed by the Ten Commandments. 'Paul did not mean these,' they said, 'but those prescribed by the law of Moses which were intended for the Jews; and this is clearly established from his saying to Peter, whom he criticised for following Jewish practices, although he knew that no one is justified by the deeds prescribed by the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ (Galatians 2:14-16).' The faith of Jesus Christ is faith in Him and from Him, see above 338. Because by the deeds prescribed by the law Paul understood the deeds prescribed by the law of Moses, he made a distinction between the law of faith and the law of deeds, and between Jews and gentiles, or between circumcision and lack of circumcision. Circumcision means the Jews, as everywhere else. And he ends with these words:

Are we then abolishing the law by faith? By no means, we are reinforcing the law, Romans 3:27-31.

(He says all this in a single passage.) He also says in the preceding chapter:

It is not those who hear the law who will be justified by God, but those who keep it, Romans 2:13.

He says elsewhere that God will repay each according to his deeds (Romans 2:6), and:

We must all be put on show before the tribunal of Christ, so that each may be rewarded for his bodily acts, whether good or ill. 2 Corinthians 5:10.

There are many more passages showing that Paul rejected faith without good deeds, just as much as James did (James 2:17-26).

[3] Further evidence that Paul meant the deeds prescribed by the law of Moses for the Jews can be drawn from the fact that all the statutes for the Jews are called in the writings of Moses the law, and so these are the deeds prescribed by the law; e.g.:

This is the law of the grain offering, Leviticus 6:14, 18ff.

This is the law of the burnt-offering, the grain-offering, the sin-sacrifice, the guilt-sacrifice and the consecration, Leviticus 7:37, This is the law of beast and bird, Leviticus 11:46ff.

This is the law for one who bears a child, a son or a daughter, Leviticus 12:7.

This is the law for a leprous disease, Leviticus 13:59; 14:2, 32, 54, 57 This is the law of the person with a discharge, Leviticus 15:32.

This is the law in cases of jealousy, Numbers 5:29-30.

This is the law for the Nazirite, Numbers 6:13, 21.

This is the law of cleansing, Numbers 19:14.

This is the law concerning the red cow, Numbers 19:2.

The law for the king, Deuteronomy 17:15-19.

In fact, the whole book of Moses is called 'the Book of the Law' (Deuteronomy 31:9, 11-12, 26; also Luke 2:22; 24:44; John 1:45; 7:22-23; 8:5). They went on to say that they had seen in the writings of Paul that the Law of the Ten Commandments was to be observed in living and to be fulfilled by charity (Romans 13:8-11). He also says that there are three things, faith, hope and charity, and that the greatest of these is charity (1 Corinthians 13:13). So it is clear he did not put faith first. They said that these subjects were what they had been summoned to debate.

[4] However, not to disturb them, I went away; and then again they looked at a distance like goats, sometimes lying down and sometimes standing. But they turned their backs on the flock of sheep. When they were debating, they seemed to be lying down, but standing up when they reached a conclusion. But I kept my gaze fixed on their horns, and was surprised to notice that at one time the horns on their foreheads appeared to point forwards and upwards, at another time curving away towards their backs and eventually pointing completely the other way. Then they suddenly turned to face the flock of sheep, but they still looked like goats. So I went up to them again and asked: 'What are you doing now?' They replied that they had reached the conclusion that faith alone produces the good deeds of charity, as a tree produces fruit.

Then a clap of thunder was heard, and a flash of lightning was seen coming from above. Following this an angel appeared, standing between the two flocks, who shouted to the flock of sheep: 'Do not listen to them. They have not abandoned their former faith, which is that faith alone brings justification and salvation, and the practice of charity plays no part. Neither is faith a tree; it is man who is the tree. Repent and look to the Lord, and you will have faith; before doing that, the faith you have is not a faith with any life in it.'

Then the goats whose horns were curved backwards wanted to join the sheep. But the angel who stood between them divided the sheep into two flocks. He told those on the left: 'Go and join the goats; but I warn you, the wolf will come and seize them, and you with them.'

[5] After the two flocks of sheep had been separated, and those on the left had heard the angel's threatening words, they looked at one another and said: 'Let us talk with our former companions.' Then the left-hand flock spoke to the right-hand one and said: 'Why have you abandoned our shepherds 2 ? Are not faith and charity one, as a tree and its fruit are one? The tree extends through its branches into the fruit; if you break a piece off a branch which forms the connection between the tree and its fruit, the fruit will be lost, won't it, and together with the fruit all the seed which might grow into a new tree? Ask our priests if that isn't so.'

So they asked the priests, and they looked around at the rest, who were winking at them to get them to say that they had made a good point. After this they replied: 'You have made a good point, but as regards the extension of faith into good deeds, like that of a tree into its fruit, we know many secrets, but this is not the occasion to divulge them. The chain or thread which links faith and charity has many knots on it, and only we, the priests, are able to undo them.'

[6] Then one of the priests, who belonged to the right-hand flock of sheep, got up and said: 'Their answer to you was Yes, but to their own party No, for they do not think as they speak.' 'How then do they think?' the others asked; 'Don't they think as they teach?'

'No,' he replied, 'they think that every good of charity, what is called a good deed, which a person does for the sake of salvation and everlasting life, is not in the least good, because by doing the deed himself the person wants to save himself, claiming for himself the righteousness and merit of the one Saviour. They think that this is true of every good deed in which a person is aware of his volition. They hold therefore that there is no link at all between faith and charity, not even that faith is retained and preserved by good deeds.'

[7] But those who belonged to the left-hand flock said: 'You are telling lies to accuse them. Don't they preach charity and its deeds, what they call the deeds of faith, openly in our hearing?'

'You do not understand their sermons,' he replied; only a clergyman who is present can grasp and understand them. What they have in mind is merely moral charity, and its social and political good deeds.

They call these the good deeds of faith, but they are certainly not. For an atheist can do them just as well and in the same guise. They say therefore with one voice that no one is saved by any deeds, but by faith alone. Let us take a comparison to illustrate this. They say that an apple-tree produces apples, but that if a person does good for the sake of salvation, just as the tree by a continuous extension of itself produces apples, then the apples are rotten inside and full of maggots. They say too that a vine produces grapes, but if a person were to do spiritual good deeds as a vine makes grapes, he would make bitter grapes.'

[8] Then they asked: 'What for them are the good deeds of charity, those that are the fruits of faith?'

He replied that perhaps they lurk out of sight somewhere near faith, but are not attached to it. 'They are,' he said, 'like a person's shadow, which follows behind him when he is looking towards the sun, and which he cannot see unless he turns around. Or rather I might say that they are like horses' tails, which in many places are docked nowadays, because people say: "What use are they? They serve no purpose, and if they remain attached to the horse, they easily get dirty."'

On hearing this someone in the left-hand flock of sheep became indignant and said: 'There certainly must be some link, else how could they be called the deeds of faith? Possibly the good deeds of charity are introduced by God into what a person does of his own will by some influence; let us say, by some affection, some afflatus, inspiration, urging and excitation of the will, some silent perception in thought, leading to exhortation, contrition and so to conscience, and thus leading to compulsion, obedience to the Ten Commandments and the Word, either like a child or like a wise man, or by some other means resembling these. How else could they call them the fruits of faith?'

To this the priest replied that they could not. 'And,' he said, 'if they do say that something like this happens, they still stuff their sermons full of words which prove that it is not from faith. There are still others who teach that such things occur but only as signs of faith, not as bonds linking it with charity. There are some, however, who have devised a theory of linking by means of the Word.'

Then they said, 'Isn't this how a link is made?' But he answered, 'That is not what they think, but they imagine it happens just by listening to the Word. For they claim that man's whole rational and voluntary faculty is in matters to do with faith impure and merit-seeking, since in spiritual matters a person cannot understand or will anything, work or co-operate, any more than a stick.'

[9] However one, on hearing that man was believed to be like this in all matters to do with faith and salvation, said: 'I heard someone saying: "I have planted a vineyard. Now I shall drink wine until I am drunk." But another man asked: "Surely you will drink wine out of your goblet by the use of your right hand?" "No," he said, "I shall drink out of an invisible goblet by means of an invisible hand." "Then," said the other man, "you certainly won't get drunk."'

A little later the same man said: 'Please listen to me. I tell you, drink the wine which comes from understanding the Word. Don't you know that the Lord is the Word? Is not the Word from the Lord? Is He not thus in it? If therefore you do good from the Word, are you not doing it from the Lord, in accordance with His words and His will? If you then look to the Lord, He will also guide and teach you, and you will do it of yourselves from the Lord. Can anyone who does something at a king's behest, in accordance with his words and his instructions, say: "I am doing this in accordance with my own words or instructions, and of my own will."'

[10] After this he turned to the clergy and said: 'You ministers of God, do not lead the flock astray.' On hearing this the majority of the left-hand flock went away and joined the right-hand flock.

Then some of the clergy began saying: 'We have heard things we never heard before. But we are shepherds, and we shall not abandon the sheep.' So they went away with them, saying: 'This man has uttered a true saying. How can anyone say "I do this of myself" when he does it in accordance with the Word, so at the Lord's behest, in accordance with His words and His will? Can anyone who does something at a king's behest, in accordance with his words and his will, say: "I am doing this of myself"? We now see it was by Divine providence that the link between faith and good deeds, which is recognised by the members of the church, was not discovered. It could not be, because it could not exist; for there was no faith in the Lord, who is the Word, and so there was not either any faith coming from the Word.'

But the rest of the priests, who belonged to the flock of goats, went off waving their hats and shouting: 'Faith alone, faith alone, long live faith alone.'

Footnotes:

1. This passage is repeated with modifications from Apocalypse Revealed 417.

2. The Latin word means both shepherd and pastor.

  
/ 853  
  

Thanks to the Swedenborg Society for the permission to use this translation.

©2024 New Christian Bible Study Corporation. All rights reserved. Printed from newchristianbiblestudy.org