评论

 

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.

来自斯威登堡的著作

 

Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture#26

学习本章节

  
/118  
  

26. 5. The Word’s spiritual meaning is granted after this only to someone who possesses genuine truths from the Lord. The reason is this: because no one can see the spiritual meaning unless he is enabled to do so by the Lord alone, and unless he possesses genuine truths from Him. For the Word’s spiritual meaning deals with the Lord alone and His kingdom, and that sense is the one possessed by His angels in heaven. It is, indeed, His Divine truth there. It is possible for a person to violate that truth if he has a knowledge of correspondences and tries to use it to explore the Word’s spiritual meaning in accord with his own intelligence. Applying some of the correspondences he knows, he may twist its meaning and use it to confirm even falsity, which would be to do injury to Divine truth, and to heaven as well. If someone tries to lay open that sense on his own, therefore, and not from the Lord, heaven is closed, and when heaven is closed, a person either sees nothing, or he becomes spiritually irrational.

[2] There is also another reason. Because the Lord teaches everyone by means of the Word, and teaches him in accordance with the truths the person already possesses and does not infuse new truths directly, therefore if the person is without any Divine truths, or if he possesses only a few truths and is caught up at the same time in falsities, it would be possible for him to use those falsities to falsify the truths — as is also commonly known to be the case with every heretic as regards just the Word’s literal sense.

Consequently, to keep people from entering into the Word’s spiritual meaning, or from twisting the genuine truth found in that sense, the Lord has set protections, meant in the Word by cherubim.

[3] That protections have been set was represented to me in the following way:

I was given to see large purses, looking like sacks, which had stored away in them a great deal of silver. Since they were open, it seemed as if anyone might take some of the silver deposited in them, even to make off with it. However, next to the purses two angels were sitting as guards. The place where the purses rested looked like a manger in a stable. In the next room I saw modest maidens, together with a chaste wife. Near that room were two little children, and I heard it said they were not to be played with in a childish way, but wisely. Afterward a harlot appeared, then a horse lying dead.

4] On seeing these images I was informed that they represented the literal meaning of the Word, which has a spiritual meaning within. The large purses full of silver symbolized concepts of truth there in great abundance. The purses’ being open and yet guarded by angels symbolized that anyone might draw concepts of truth there, but that people should take care not to falsify the spiritual meaning, which contains only truths. The manger in the stable where the purses were sitting symbolized spiritual instruction for the intellect. (A manger has this symbolism, because a horse, which feeds from it, symbolizes the intellect.)

5] The modest maidens I saw in the next room symbolized affections for truth, and the chaste wife the conjunction of truth and good. The little children symbolized the innocence of the wisdom in it (they were angels from the third heaven, all of whom appear like little children). The harlot together with the dead horse symbolized the falsification of the Word by many people today, by which all understanding of the truth has been extinguished. (A harlot symbolizes falsification, and a dead horse no understanding of truth.)

  
/118  
  

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

来自斯威登堡的著作

 

True Christian Religion#17

学习本章节

  
/853  
  

17. Later on I asked where I could meet the sharpest minds among the learned who stood for a Divine Trinity divided into three Persons. Three came forward, whom I addressed thus: 'How can you divide the Divine Trinity into three Persons and assert that each Person by Himself or singly is God and Lord? If so, your verbal profession that God is one is as far removed from what you think as the south is from the north.'

To this they replied: 'It is not removed at all, because the three Persons have one essence, and the Divine Essence is God. In the world we were guardians of the Trinity of Persons, and the ward whom we protected was our faith, according to which each Divine Person has been given His own role to play. The role of God the Father is to impute and grant, of God the Son to intercede and mediate, and of God the Holy Spirit to carry out the services of imputation and mediation.'

[2] 'What,' I asked, 'do you understand by the Divine Essence?' 'We understand,' they said, 'omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, immensity, eternity, and equality of majesty.'

To which I replied: 'If that essence can make a number of gods into one, you could add more still, as for example a fourth, who is mentioned by Moses, Ezekiel and Job under the title of God Shaddai. The ancients in Greece and Italy did the same, assigning similar attributes and a like essence to their gods, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Pluto, Apollo, Juno, Diana, Minerva, even Mercury and Venus. Yet they were unable to say that all those were one God. The three of you, as I can tell, are equally learned and share the same essence in that respect, but you cannot combine yourselves into a single scholar.'

They laughed at this, and said: 'You are joking. It is different with the Divine Essence, which is one and not divided into three, so it is individual and undivided; it cannot admit partition and division.'

[3] To this I answered: 'Let us go down into this arena and do combat.' I asked: 'What do you understand by 'Person'? What does this word mean?'

'The word Person,' they said, 'does not mean any part or quality in another, but what exists in its own right; that is how all the Fathers of the church define Person, and we follow them.'

'Is this,' I said, 'the definition of Person?'

'Yes,' they answered.

To this I retorted: 'Then there is no part of the Father in the Son, nor of either in the Holy Spirit. From this it follows that each has His own judgment, rights and powers, and there is nothing to link them except the will, which is peculiar to each individual, and so can be communicated if desired. Then are not the three Persons three separate gods? Listen to this: you have defined Person as that which exists in its own right; consequently you are saying that there are three substances, into which you split the Divine Essence. Yet this, as you too say, cannot be split, since it is one and undivided. Moreover you attribute to each substance, that is, each Person, properties distinct from another's, and which cannot be shared with another, namely, imputation, mediation and working. What can result from this but that the three Persons are three gods?'

At this they withdrew saying: 'We will discuss these points and reply when we have discussed them.'

[4] A wise man was standing near, who on hearing these things said: 'I do not wish to subject a matter of such supreme importance to such subtle refinements, but these subtleties apart I can see perfectly clearly that your thought contains the idea of three gods. But since you are ashamed to say this publicly before the whole world — for if you did, you would be called crazy and fools — you find it expedient to have the profession of one God on your lips in order to avoid disgrace.'

At this, however, the three still clung to their opinion and paid no attention, and as they went away they were muttering some terms borrowed from metaphysics; this told me that that was the oracle whose responses they wished to give.

  
/853  
  

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