484、对此，我补充发生在灵界的三件难忘的事。第一件难忘的事：
有一次我在灵界听见好像磨坊的声音。这个声音在北部地区。起初，我想知道它是什么，但后来想起在圣言中，“磨坊”和“推磨”是指从圣言寻求可用于教义的东西(AR 794节)。因此，我朝听见声音的地方走去；当我走近时，那声音却消失了；我看到地上有一种拱形屋顶或拱形石窟，有一个入口通过一个洞穴通向它。看到它，我就下来进去了。看哪！有一个房间，我看见里面有一个老人坐在书中间，他把圣言举到他面前，从中寻找可用于他教义的东西。到处都是纸条，上面记录着对他有用的东西。隔壁房间有抄写员，他们收集纸条，把上面的内容抄到一整张纸上。我先问他周围的书。他说，它们都是论述称义之信的，来自瑞典和丹麦的书论述深刻，来自德国的书论述得更深刻，来自英国的书论述得还要更深刻，而来自荷兰的书论述得最深刻。他还补充说，它们在各个方面都存在分歧，但在唯信称义和唯信得救这一点上都是一致的。后来，他对我说，他现在正从圣言中收集称义之信的这第一条，即：父神因人类的罪孽而放弃对人类的恩典；因此，为了拯救世人，就要有人做出补偿、和解、挽回和调和，要把公义的定罪担在自己身上，这是神性的必要性；而这事只有祂的独生子才能做到；这事完成之后，通向父神的道路就为了圣子的缘故被打开了。他说：“我看到，并且已经看到，这是合乎一切理性的。若不相信圣子的功德，父神怎能被靠近呢？我刚刚又发现，这同样合乎圣经。”
听到这话，我对他声称这既“合乎理性”，也“合乎圣经”感到震惊；而事实上，正如我明确告诉他的，这既违背理性，也违背圣经。然后，他热情高涨地反驳道：“你怎么能这样说。”于是我敞开心扉说：“认为父神放弃了对人类的恩典，并弃绝人类，这岂不违背理性？神性恩典不是神性本质的属性？因此，放弃恩典就是放弃祂的神性本质，放弃祂的神性本质就不再是神。神怎么可能疏远祂自己呢？相信我，神的恩典是无限的，所以也是永恒的。人若不接受神的恩典，就可能会失去它；但神永远不会失去祂的恩典。如果恩典离开神，那么整个天堂和整个人类就都完了，以至于人在各个方面都不再是人。因此，神的恩典会存到永远，不仅向天使和世人存到永远，而且也向魔鬼本身存到永远。既然这合乎理性，你为什么说只有通过相信圣子的功德才能接近父神呢？而事实上，通过恩典就可以永远接近。
“但你为何说为了圣子的缘故而接近父神呢？为何不通过圣子接近父神？难道圣子不是中保和救主吗？你为何不去找中保和救主自己呢？难道祂不是神和人吗？在地上，有谁能直接觐见皇帝、国王，或首领呢？不是必须有一个人来引见和介绍吗？难道你不知道，主降世是为了祂自己可以把人引到父那里，若不藉着祂，就不可能有(通向父神的)道路吗？现在查圣经，你就会看到，这符合圣经，而你通往父的道路违背圣经，就像违背理性一样。我还告诉你，攀向父神却不通过在父怀里的主(唯独主在父里面)，这是一种无礼的行为。难道你没读过约翰福音(14:6)吗？”听到这些话，那老人恼羞成怒，从椅子上跳起来，大声叫抄写员把我赶出去。当我主动快速离开时，他手里正好有一本书，就扔到我身后的门外，这本书就是圣言。
第二件难忘的事：
我离开后，又听见刺耳的声音，但这次听上去像是两块磨石在互相研磨。我顺着声音的方向走去，那声音渐渐消失了。我看见一道狭窄的入口往下斜斜地通向一种圆顶或屋顶建筑，这种建筑被分成若干小隔间。每个隔间里都坐着两个人，他们也在从圣言中搜集支持信的证据。其中，一个搜集，一个写下来；并且这一过程交替进行。我走到一个隔间，站在门口问：“你们在搜集和写什么？”他们说：“关于称义的行为，或行为中的信；这是称义、复活和得救的信本身，是基督教教义的主要信条。”听到这里，我对其中一个人说：“当这信被引入一个人的内心和灵魂时，请告诉我这一行为的一些迹象？”他回答说：“就在一个人因受诅咒的痛苦而被驱使去思想基督除去了律法的定罪，并充满信心地抓住祂的功德，他因想到这一切而转向父神并祈祷的那一刻，该行为的一个迹象就存在了。”
然后，我说：“原来行为是这样发生的，这就是那一时刻。”我问：“我该如何理解关于这一行为所说的这些话，即：人的任何东西都无助于它，或说人里面没有任何东西能与它合作，就好像他是一根木头或一块石头那样呢？或者，就这一行为而言，这个人根本不能开始、意愿、理解、思考、运作、合作，或应用并适应它。请告诉我，这如何与你的说法一致？因为你说，就在此人想到律法的正当权利或审判，想到他的诅咒或定罪被基督除去，想到他紧紧抓住祂的功德所怀的信心，他因想到这一切而转向父神并祈祷的时候，这个行为就发生了；这一切都是这个人貌似凭自己所做的。”但他说：“这个人不是主动，而是被动做这一切的。”
我回答说：“一个人怎能被动思考、拥有信心，并祈祷呢？剥夺一个人的主动或回应能力，不也同时剥夺了他的接受能力，从而剥夺了他自己的一切，以及与这一切同在的这个行为本身了吗？那么，你的行为不就成了可称为理智实体1，或臆造想象的纯粹理想或理论了吗？我知道你不会随同一些人认为，这种行为只在那些命中注定的人身上才有可能发生，他们对信在他们里面的灌输一无所知。这些人不妨掷个骰子，来看看它是否发生了。因此，我的朋友，请相信，在信的问题上，人貌似凭自己运作和合作；若没有这种合作，你称之为教义和宗教的主要信条的信之行为，无非是罗得妻子所变成的雕像，当被文士的笔或指甲刮擦时，只有盐的微弱声音，或像干盐一样发出丁当声(路加福音17:32)。我说这话是因为，就这种行为而言，你正在把自己变得像雕像一样。”当我说这话时，那人站起来，操起烛台竭尽全力朝我脸上砸过来。但这时，蜡烛突然灭了，房间变得一片漆黑，因此他把灯台扔到了同伴的额头上；我笑着走了。
1.理智实体：阿维洛伊主义者的“理智实体论”，即断言理智乃存在于人的身体和灵魂之外的独立实体。
第三件难忘的事：
在灵界的北部地区，我听见仿佛流水的咆哮声，于是就朝那个方向走去。当我走近时，咆哮声停止了，我又听见仿佛一群人聚集的声音。这时，只见有一幢千疮百孔的房子，房子的四围是一堵墙，我所听到的声音就是从那里发出的。我走近了，发现那里有一个看门人，就问他谁在里面。他说，他们是最有智慧的人，正在对超自然事物，或形而上学的主题得出结论。他出于自己简单的信仰这样说。我问我是否可以进去。他说，可以，只要我什么都别说。“我可以让你进去”，他说，“因为我有权让与我一起站在门口的外邦人进去。”因此，我就进去了；看哪，这是一个圆形剧场，剧场中间有一个讲台；一群所谓的智者正在讨论信仰的奥秘。当时提交讨论的问题或命题是：一个人在因信称义的状态下，或在行为之后，信的发展过程中所行的良善，是不是宗教的良善。他们一致说，宗教的良善是指有助于救赎的良善。
这是一场激烈的讨论；但那些声称人在信的状态下，或在信的发展过程中所行的良善只是道德、文明或政治的良善，这些良善对救赎没有任何贡献，只有信才能做出贡献的人占了上风。他们是这样来证实的：“人的任何作为怎能与白白的恩典结合呢？救恩不是白白的恩典吗？人的任何良善怎能与基督的功德结合呢？救赎不是单靠基督的功德，或说基督的功德不是救赎的唯一途径吗？人的运作怎能与圣灵的运作结合呢？圣灵不是在没有人帮助的情况下成就一切吗？不是唯独这三个要素在信的行为中使人得救吗？在信的状态或发展过程中，不还是唯独这三个要素继续使人得救吗？因此，一个人所行的任何额外的良善都决不能被称为宗教的良善；正如我们所说的，惟有宗教的良善才有助于救赎。然而，如果有人为了救赎而实行这良善，那么它更应该被称为宗教的邪恶。”
门口有两个外邦人站在看门人旁边；他们听了这话就彼此说：“这些人没有任何宗教信仰。谁不明白，为了神，因而与神一起，并出于神向邻舍行善就是我们所说的宗教？”其中一个人说：“他们的信冲昏了他们的头脑，使他们变得愚蠢。”于是，他们就问看门人：“这些人是谁？”看门人说：“他们是智慧的基督徒。”对此，他们回答说：“胡说，你在骗我们；他们是戏剧演员；这是他们的说话方式。”然后我就走了。过了一段时间，我回头看那房子所在的地方，看哪，它成了一片沼泽。
我所看到和听到的这些事，都是在我的身体和灵同时清醒的状态下看到和听到的，因为主将我的灵和身体如此结合在一起，以至于我可以同时在这两者中。在主的神性支持之下，我来到这些房子或住所，当时他们认真思考了这些主题，并且事情照着刚才所描述的那样发生了。
484. To this I will append three accounts of events that occurred in the spiritual world.
The first event: I once heard in the spiritual world what sounded like the noise of a mill. It was in the northern zone there. I wondered at first what it was, but then I remembered that in the Word a mill and the grinding of grain means to seek from the Word something usable for doctrine (no. 794). Therefore I went over to the place that I heard the sound coming from, and when I drew near, the sound died away, and I saw a kind of domed structure over the earth, with an entrance leading into it through a cave. Seeing this, I went down and entered, and lo, I found a room in which I saw an elderly man sitting, surrounded by books, holding a copy of the Word in front of him and seeking from it something he could use for his doctrine. He had slips of paper lying all around, on which he recorded the texts he found. In an adjoining room there were clerks who would collect the slips of paper and copy them onto a whole sheet.
I began by asking him about the books he had around him. He said that they all dealt with justifying faith, profoundly so those from Sweden and Denmark, more profoundly those from Germany, and still more profoundly those from Britain, but most profoundly those from the Netherlands. And he added that though they differed on various points, they were all in agreement on the article of justification and salvation by faith alone.
After that he told me that he was now collecting from the Word texts in support of this first tenet of justifying faith, that God the Father turned away from grace toward the human race on account of its iniquities, and that to save the human race there arose a Divine need for someone to take upon himself the condemnation required by justice, in order to effect satisfaction, reconciliation, propitiation, and mediation, and that only His Son could possibly accomplish this. He said, too, that after that, a means of approach to God the Father was opened for the sake of the Son. Moreover he said, "I have seen and still see that this accords with all reason. How could God the Father be approached except by faith in this merit of the Son? I have also now found that this accords as well with Scripture."
[2] Listening to this, I was astounded to hear him say that it accorded with reason and with Scripture, when in fact it is contrary to reason and contrary to Scripture, and I also frankly told him so. At that his zeal moved him to hotly retort, "How can you say that?"
Therefore I told him my opinion, saying, "Is it not contrary to reason to think that God the Father turned away from grace toward the human race and rejected mankind? Is not Divine grace an attribute of the Divine essence? To turn away from grace, then, would be to turn away from His own Divine essence, and to turn away from His Divine essence would mean He was no longer God. Can God be estranged from Himself? Believe me, grace on the part of God - as it is infinite, so is it eternal. The grace of God can be lost on mankind's part if people do not accept it, but never on God's part. If grace should depart from God, it would be all over with the whole of heaven and with the whole human race, to the point that people would no longer be in the least bit human. Therefore grace on the part of God continues to eternity, not only toward angels and people, but also toward the devil himself.
"Since this accords with reason, why do you say that the only means of approach to God the Father is through faith in the merit of the Son, when in fact there is a continuing approach through grace?
[3] "Furthermore, why do you call it a means of approach to God the Father for the sake of the Son, and not to God the Father through the Son? Is not the Son the Mediator and Savior? Why do you not approach the Mediator and Savior Himself? Is He not God and man? Who on earth goes directly to some emperor, king, or prince? Must one not find a deputy or someone to introduce him? Do you not know that the Lord came into the world to Himself introduce people to the Father, and that the only means of approach is through Him? Search the Scripture now, and you will see that this accords with it, and that your way to the Father is as contrary to Scripture as it is contrary to reason. I say to you also that it is an act of impudence to climb up to God the Father directly 1and not through Him who is in the bosom of the Father 2and who alone is in Him. 3Have you not read John 14:6?" 4
When he heard this, the elderly man became so angry that he leapt from his chair and shouted to his clerks to throw me out. And when I immediately left of my own accord, he threw out through the exit after me a book that his hand chanced upon, and that book was the Word.
[4] The second event: After I left, I heard the noise again, but this time it sounded like the noise of two millstones crashing into each other. I went in the direction of the sound and it died away, and I saw a narrow entryway leading gradually down to a kind of domed building divided into little compartments, in each of which two men were sitting, who were also collecting from the Word proof texts in support of faith. One of them would find them, and the other would write them down, and this by turns.
I went to one of the compartments and, standing in the doorway, asked, "What texts are you collecting and writing down?"
They said, "Texts about the act of justification or faith in act, which is faith itself, justifying, vivifying and saving - the principal tenet of doctrine in Christianity."
And at that I said to one of them, "Tell me some sign of the act when that faith is introduced into a person's heart and soul."
He replied, "A sign of the act exists the moment a person is moved, by grief at his being damned, to think about Christ as having taken away the condemnation of the Law, and when, conscious of that merit of Christ, with confidence in it, he turns with it in mind to God the Father and prays."
[5] "So that is how the act occurs," I said then, "and that is the moment."
And I asked, "How am I to understand what we are told about the act, that nothing in a person cooperates with it any more than if he were a stock or a stone? Or that as regards the act a person cannot initiate, will, understand, think, do, or contribute anything to it, and cannot conform or accommodate himself to it?
"Tell me how this agrees with what you said, that the act happens when a person thinks about the judgment of the Law, about his damnation having been taken away by Christ, about the confidence with which he is conscious of that merit of Christ, and with it in mind turns to God the Father and prays? Does the person not do all these things as though of himself?"
But he said, "The person does not do them actively, but passively."
[6] And I replied, "How can anyone think, have confidence, and pray passively? Take away a person's active or reactive participation - do you not also take away his receptivity, thus everything his own, and with that the act as well? What then does that act of yours become but something purely theoretical, which we call a figment of the imagination?
"I know that you do not believe in agreement with some that an act of this kind is possible only with those people predestined to it, who are not at all aware of the infusion of faith in them. These may as well cast dice to find out if it has occurred.
"Therefore believe, my friend, that in matters of faith a person operates and cooperates as though of himself, and that without that cooperation the act of faith, which you call the principal tenet of doctrine and religion, is no more than the pillar into which Lot's wife was turned, having the faint sound of nothing but salt when scratched with a writer's pen or fingernail (Luke 17:32 5). I say this because as regards that act you makes yourselves to be like statues."
When I said that, the man arose and picked up the lamp violently to throw it at my face. But suddenly then the lamp went out and the room became dark, so that he hurled it at the forehead of his companion. And I went away laughing.
[7] The third event: I heard in the northern zone of the spiritual world what sounded like the rushing of water. I went therefore in that direction, and when I drew near, the rushing sound stopped, and I heard what sounded like a gathering of people. Moreover a house full of holes then appeared, surrounded by a wall, from which I heard the sound coming. I approached and found there a doorkeeper, and I asked him who were inside. He said that they were the wisest of the wise, who were coming to conclusions together about metaphysical subjects.
He spoke as he did out of the simplicity of his faith, and I asked if I might be permitted to enter. He said that I could, provided that I not say anything.
"I can let you in," he said, "because I have permission to let in the gentiles here who are standing with me at the door."
I went in therefore, and lo, I found an amphitheater with a rostrum in the middle of it, and the company of the so-called wise were discussing mysteries of faith. The matter or proposition submitted for discussion then was whether the good that a person does in a state of justification by faith, or in the progress of that state after the act, constitutes the good of religion or not. They were unanimous in saying that the good of religion means good that contributes to salvation.
[8] It was an acrimonious discussion, but those prevailed who said that any good that a person does in a state of faith or its progression is only moral, civic, or political good, which contributes nothing to salvation, but that only faith contributes anything. They established this as follows:
"How can any work of man be coupled with something free? Is not salvation bestowed gratis? How can any good work of man be coupled with the merit of Christ? Is not Christ's merit the only means of salvation? And how can any operation of man be coupled with the operation of the Holy Spirit? Does not the Holy Spirit accomplish everything without the help of man? Are not these three elements the only saving ones in any act of faith? And not do these three also continue to be the only saving ones in the state or progression of faith?
"Therefore any additional good that a person does can by no means be called a good of religion, a good which, as we said, contributes to salvation. If, however, someone does that good for the sake of salvation, it must rather be called an evil of religion."
[9] Two of the gentiles were standing by the doorkeeper in the vestibule, and having heard this, they said to each other, "These people do not have any religion. Who does not see that to do good to the neighbor for God's sake, thus in association with God and impelled by God, is what we call religion." And one of them said, "Their faith has made them foolish." And they asked the doorkeeper who the people were.
The doorkeeper said, "They are wise Christians."
To which they replied, "Nonsense. You are wrong. They are buffoons. That is how they talk."
I then went away. And when after a time I looked back at the place where the house had stood, behold, it was a marsh.
----------
[10] These events that I saw and heard, I saw and heard while awake in both body and spirit, for the Lord has so united my spirit to my body that I am present in both simultaneously.
My visiting those houses, and the people's deliberations on those matters then, and its happening as described, came about under the Lord's Divine auspices.
Footnotes:
1. Cf. John 10:1.
2. John 1:18.
3. John 10:38.
4. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
5. "Remember Lot's wife."
484. To these things I will add three MEMORABLE OCCURRENCES that happened in the spiritual world.
The FIRST MEMORABLE OCCURRENCE was: I once heard there the sound as of a mill. It was in a northern region thereof. At first I wondered what this might be, but I remembered that by a 'mill' and 'to grind' in the Word is understood to seek out of the Word what is serviceable for doctrine (794). I therefore approached the place where the sound was heard, and when I was near the sound died away. Then I observed upon the ground a sort of domed grotto, access to which was open through a cave. On seeing this I went down and entered, and lo! there was a room in which I saw an old man sitting among books, holding the Word in front of him and seeking therefrom what was serviceable for his doctrine. Lying around were slips of paper on which he wrote the things serving his purpose. In an adjoining room were scribes, who were collecting the slips and transmitting [what was written on them] to a complete sheet. I questioned him first about the books around him. He said that they all dealt with JUSTIFYING FAITH, those that came from Sweden and Denmark profoundly, those from Germany more profoundly, and those that were from Britain still more profoundly, while those from Holland dealt with it most profoundly of all. He added also that while they differed on various points they were all in agreement on the article concerning justification and salvation by faith alone. Afterwards he said to me that he was at that moment collecting out of the Word this first [tenet] of justifying faith, that God the Father had given up being gracious towards the human race on account of their iniquities, and that for the salvation of men it was therefore a Divine necessity that satisfaction, reconciliation, propitiation and mediation should be made by someone who should take upon himself the condemnation required by justice (damnationem justitiae), and that this could in no wise be done except by His Only Son; also that after this was done access to God the Father was opened for His sake. And he said, 'I see and have seen that this is according to all reason. How else could God the Father be approached but by faith in the merit of His Son? And I have just now found that this is also according to Scripture.'
[2] I heard this, and was astounded at his having declared it to be 'according to reason' and 'according to Scripture,' when yet, as I plainly told him, it is contrary to reason and to Scripture. Whereupon in the growing heat of his zeal he retorted, 'How can you say so?' I therefore opened my mind, saying, 'Is it not contrary to reason to think that God the Father has given up being gracious towards the human race and has rejected it. Is not Divine Grace an attribute of the Divine Essence? Therefore to give up being gracious would be to give up His Divine Essence, and to give up His Divine Essence would be to be God no more. Is it possible for God to be alienated from His Very Self? Believe me, that grace on the part of God, just as it is infinite, is also eternal. The grace of God can be lost on the part of man if he does not receive it, but never on the part of God. If grace should depart from God it would be all up with the entire heaven and with the entire human race, insomuch that man would no longer be man as to any least thing of him. Therefore grace on the part of God endures to eternity, not only towards angels and men but also towards the Devil himself. Since this is according to reason, why do you say that the only access to God the Father is through faith in the merit of the Son, when yet there is perpetual access through grace?
[3] But why do you say access to God the Father for the sake of the Son? and why not to God the Father through the Son? Is not the Son the Mediator and Saviour? Why do you not go to the Mediator and Saviour Himself? Is He not God and Man? Who on earth goes directly to any emperor, king, or chief? Must there not be one to procure admission and introduce him? Do you not know that the Lord came into the world so that He Himself might introduce [men] to the Father, and that there is no possible access except through Him? Search the Scriptures now and you will see that this is in accordance therewith, and that your way to the Father is contrary to Scripture just as it is contrary to reason. I tell you further, that it is presumption to climb up to God the Father and not [come] through Him Who is in the bosom of the Father and Who Only is with Him. Have you not read, John 14:6?' Having heard these things the old man became so heated that he sprang out of his chair and shouted to his scribes to throw me out. And when I went out quickly of my own accord, he threw after me beyond the doors the book that happened to be at hand, and that book was the Word.
[4] The SECOND MEMORABLE OCCURRENCE was this: After I went out I again heard a grating sound, but like that of two millstones grinding together. I approached the sound and it died away, and I saw a narrow entrance leading obliquely downwards into a kind of grotto divided into little compartments, in each of which two [men] were sitting who were also collecting out of the Word confirmations in favour of faith. The one was collecting and the other writing, and this by turns. I approached one compartment and stood in the doorway and asked, 'What are you collecting and writing?' The answer was, '[Passages] concerning the ACT OF JUSTIFICATION or the FAITH IN ACT, which is faith itself justifying, quickening and saving, and the chief thing of doctrine in Christendom.' Whereupon I said to him, 'Tell me some sign of the act, when that faith is brought into the heart and the soul of a man.' He replied, 'The sign of the act is instantaneous, when the man, moved with distress that he has been condemned, thinks of Christ, that He has taken away the condemnation of the law, and with confidence lays hold of this merit of His, and with this in his thought goes to God the Father and prays.
[5] I then said, 'Suppose it to be so, and that the act is instantaneous.' And I asked, 'How shall I comprehend what is said of this act, that nothing more of the man contributes to it than would do so if he were a stock or a stone, and that the man as to that act is not able to begin, will, understand, think, operate, co-operate, or apply and accommodate himself at all? Tell me, how does this agree with your having said that the act takes place precisely when the man is thinking of the justness of the law, of his condemnation having been removed by Christ, of the confidence by virtue of which he lays hold of that merit of His, and when in thinking of this he goes to God the Father and prays, and all those things are done by the man as of himself.' But he said, 'They are not done actively by the man, but passively.'
[6] And I replied, 'How can anyone think, have confidence, or pray, passively? Take away from a man what is active or reactive, do you not then take away what is receptive, and thus everything, and with everything the act itself? What does your act then become but something purely ideal, which may be called an entity of the reasoning faculty. I know that you do not suppose along with certain people that such an act is allowed to happen only with the predestined, who know nothing whatever of the infusion of faith with themselves. They might as well play at dice to find out whether it is so. Therefore, my friend, believe that in matters of faith a man operates and co-operates as of himself, and that in the absence of that co-operation the act of faith, which you call the chief thing of doctrine and religion, is nothing but a statue of Lot's wife, tinkling like dry salt when scratched with a scribe's pen or his finger-nail (Luke 17:32). I have said this because as to that act you are making your own selves like statues.' When I said this he got up and grabbed hold of a candlestick to throw it in my face, but then, the candle having suddenly gone out leaving thick darkness, he threw it against his companion's forehead and I went away laughing.
[7] This was the THIRD MEMORABLE OCCURRENCE. In a northern region of the spiritual world I heard as it were the roar of waters. So I went over there, and when I was getting near, the roar ceased, and I heard sounds like those of a large gathering of people. And at that moment a house with holes in it and a walled enclosure round it was seen. It was from this house that the sounds were heard. I approached, and there was a doorkeeper, whom I questioned about the people there. He said that they were the wisest of the wise who come to conclusions among themselves on supernatural subjects. He spoke in this manner out of the simplicity of his faith. I said, 'Is it permitted to go in?' He said that it was, 'only you must not speak. I can let you in, because as a favour I am letting the Gentiles in who are standing with me at the door.' And so I entered, and lo! there was a circular arena with a raised platform in the middle, and an assembly of the so-called wise were discussing the mysteries of faith. The theme or proposition then the subject of discussion was, 'Whether the good that a man does in THE STATE OF JUSTIFICATION OF FAITH, or in its progress after the act, is the good of religion or not?' They were unanimous in stating that by the good of religion is understood the good that contributes to salvation.
[8] The discussion was eager; but those prevailed who said that the good things that a man does in the state or progression of faith are only moral, civil and political, which contribute nothing to salvation, but that faith is the only means. And they confirmed it thus: 'How can any work of a man be conjoined with free grace? Is not salvation of free grace? How can any good of a man be conjoined with the merit of Christ? Is not salvation by it alone? And how can a man's operation be conjoined with the operation of the Holy Spirit? Does it not effect all things without the help of the man? Are not these three things alone saving in the act of faith? And do these three not also remain as alone saving in the state or progress of faith? And therefore accessory good from a man cannot possibly be called the good of religion, which, as was said, contributes to salvation; but if anyone does this for the sake of salvation it should rather be called the evil of religion.'
[9] The two Gentiles who were standing in the entrance near the door-keeper heard these things, and one said to the other, 'These people have not any religion. Who does not see that to do good to the neighbour for the sake of God, thus with God and from God, is what is called religion.' And the other said, 'Their faith has infatuated them.' Whereupon they asked the door-keeper, 'Who are these people?' The door-keeper said, 'They are wise Christians.' 'Nonsense, you are deceiving us,' they replied; 'by the way they are talking they are play-actors.' And I went away. And when after a time I looked at the place where that house had been, behold! it was a swamp.
[10] These things that I saw and heard I did see and hear in a wide-awake condition of my body and spirit at the same time, for the Lord has so united the spirit to my body that I am in both at the same time. The fact that I came to those abodes, and that they deliberated then about those subjects, and that it took place just as it is described, was of the Divine Auspices of the Lord.
484. To this I will add three Relations, of things that occurred in the spiritual world. The First Relation is this: I once heard there the sound as of a mill. It was in the northern quarter. I wondered at first what this was; but I recollected that by "a mill" and by "grinding" in the Word is meant to seek from the Word what is serviceable for doctrine, (794). On which account I approached the place where that sound was heard; and when I was near, the sound died away; and I then saw a kind of arched roof above the earth, the entrance to which was through a cave. Seeing which, I descended and entered. And behold there was a chamber, in which I saw an old man sitting among books, holding before him the Word, and seeking therefrom what might be serviceable for his doctrine. Scraps of paper lay around, on which he wrote down what served him. There were scribes in an adjoining room, who gathered up the papers, and copied them upon an entire sheet. I asked first about the books around him. He said that they all treated of justifying faith; "those which were from Sweden and Denmark profoundly, those which were from Germany more profoundly, and those that were from Britain more profoundly still, and most profoundly those from Holland." And he added that they disagree in various things, but that in the article of justification and salvation by faith alone they all agree. Afterwards he said to me that he was now collecting from the Word this first point of justifying faith, that God the Father fell away from grace towards the human race on account of their iniquities; and that it was therefore a Divine necessity for the saving of men, that satisfaction, reconciliation, propitiation, and mediation should be made by some one, who should take upon himself the condemnation of justice; and this could by no means be done but by His only Son; and that after this was done, access to God the Father was open for His sake. And he said, "I see and have seen, that this is according to all reason. How otherwise could God the Father be approached, except through faith in that merit of the Son? I have now found also, that this is likewise according to Scripture."
[2] I heard this, and was astounded that he should say that it was according to reason and according to Scripture, when yet it is contrary to reason and contrary to Scripture; which I also told him plainly. He then rejoined in the wrath of his zeal, "How can you speak so?" Wherefore I opened my mind, saying, "Is it not contrary to reason to think that God the Father fell away from grace towards the human race, and rejected it?
"Is not the Divine Grace an attribute of the Divine Essence? Wherefore, to fall away from grace would be to fall away from His Divine Essence; and to fall away from His Divine Essence, would be to be no longer God. Can God be alienated from Himself? Believe me, that grace on the part of God, as it is infinite, is also eternal. The grace of God may be lost on the part of man, if he does not receive it; but never on the part of God. If grace should recede from God, there would be an end of the entire heaven and with it the entire human race, insomuch that man would no longer be man in any respect; for which reason grace on the part of God endures forever, not only towards angels and men, but also towards the devil himself. Since this is according to reason, why do you say that the only access to God the Father is through faith in the Son's merit, when yet there is perpetual access through grace?
[3] "But why do you say, access to God the Father for the sake of the Son? and why not to God the Father through the Son? Is not the Son the Mediator and Saviour? Why do you not go to the Mediator and Saviour Himself? Is He not God and Man? Who on the earth goes immediately to an emperor, king, or prince? Must there not be a deputy or introducer? Do you not know that the Lord came into the world, that He might introduce us to the Father; and that access is not given, except through Him? Search now in the Scriptures, and you will see that this is according to them; and that your way to the Father is contrary to Scripture, as it is contrary to reason. I tell you, too, that it is presumption to climb up to God the Father, and not through Him who is in the bosom of the Father, and alone is with Him. Have you not read John 14:6?" Hearing these things, the old man was so angry, that he leaped from his seat, and cried out to his scribes to cast me out. And when I immediately went out of myself, he threw out of doors after me the book which his hand by chance took hold of, and that book was the Word.
[4] The Second Relation. After I went out, I again heard a harsh sound, but like that of two millstones in collision with each other. I went in the direction of the sound, and it died away. And I saw a narrow gate leading obliquely downwards into a kind of roofed building divided into little cells, in each of which two were sitting, who were also collecting from the Word confirmations in favor of faith; one collected, and the other wrote; and this alternately. I went up to one cell, and stood in the door, and asked, "What are you collecting and writing?" They said, "Concerning the act of justification, or, concerning faith in act; which is faith itself justifying, vivifying, and saving, and is the chief doctrine in Christendom." And I then said to him, "Tell me some sign of the act, when that faith is brought into the heart and into the soul of a man." He answered, "The sign of the act is in the moment when the man, moved with distress that he is condemned, thinks of Christ, that He took away the condemnation of the law, and takes hold of this His merit with confidence; and with this in his thought, goes to God the Father, and prays."
[5] Then I said, "Thus the act takes place, and this is the moment." And I asked, "How shall I comprehend what is said of this act, that not anything of the man contributes to it, any more than it would if he were a stock or a stone; and that the man, as to that act, cannot begin, will, understand, think, operate, cooperate, apply, and accommodate himself in any respect. Tell me how this agrees with your saying, that the act takes place at the time when the man thinks of the rightful power of the law, of his condemnation as taken away by Christ, of the confidence by which he takes hold of that merit of His; and when in thought concerning this he goes to God the Father, and prays; and all those things are done by the man as of himself." But he said, "They are not done actively by the man, but passively."
[6] And I replied, "How can one think, have confidence, and pray, passively? Take away the active or the reactive from the man at that time, do you not take away the receptiveness also, and thus the whole, and with it the act itself? What then becomes of your act, unless it be a mere ideal, which is called a thing of the reason? I know that you do not believe, with some, that such an act is given only with the predestined, who know nothing whatever of the infusion of faith with themselves. These may play at dice, to find out whether it is so. For which reason, my friend, believe that in the things of faith man operates and cooperates as of himself; and that without that cooperation, the act of faith, which you have called the chief of doctrine and of religion, is nothing but the statue of Lot's wife, tinkling as mere salt when scratched by the scribe's pen, or fingernail, (Luke 17:32). I have said this, because, as to that act, you make yourselves like statues." When I said this, he rose, and seized the candlestick with the full force of his hand to cast it in my face; but the candle being then suddenly extinguished, in the thick darkness he threw it against the forehead of his companion; and I went away laughing.
[7] The Third Relation. In the northern quarter of the spiritual world I heard as it were the roar of waters; therefore I approached thither; and when I was near, the roar ceased, and I heard a sound like that from a congregation. And then a house was seen full of holes, surrounded by a rough wall, from which that sound proceeded. I approached, and there was a doorkeeper there, whom I asked who were there. He said that they were the wisest of the wise, who decide among themselves concerning supernatural things. He spoke thus from his simple belief. And I asked whether it was permitted to enter. He said that it was, "provided you say nothing. I may admit you, because I have leave to admit Gentiles, who stand with me at the door." I therefore entered; and behold, it was a circus, and in the midst of it a pulpit; and an assembly of the wise, and thus of the learned, were discussing the arcana of faith. And the matter or proposition then submitted for discussion was, whether the good which a man does in the state of justification by faith, or in the progression of it after the act, is the good of religion or not. They said unanimously, that by the good of religion was meant the good which contributes to salvation.
[8] The discussion was sharp; but those prevailed who said that the goods which a man does in the state or in the progression of faith, are only moral, civil, and political goods, which contribute nothing to salvation; but that faith only can do this. And they confirmed it thus. "How can any work of man be conjoined with free grace? Is not salvation of free grace? How can any good of man be conjoined with Christ's merit? Is not salvation by that alone? And how can man's operation be conjoined with the operation of the Holy Spirit? Does not this do all, without the man's help? Are not these three things alone saving in the act of faith? And these three things also remain as alone saving in the state or progression of faith. For which reason accessory good from the man can by no means be called the good of religion, which, as was said, contributes to salvation. But if one does this for the sake of salvation, it is rather to be called the evil of religion."
[9] Two Gentiles were standing in the entry near the doorkeeper; and they heard these things, and said to each other, "These people have not any religion. Who does not see that to do good to the neighbor for the sake of God, and thus with God, and from God, is what is called religion?" And the other said, "Their faith hath infatuated them." And they then asked the doorkeeper, "Who are these?" The doorkeeper said, "They are wise Christians." And they answered, "Nonsense, you are deceiving us; they are play-actors; they speak like them." And I went away. And when I looked, after a time, to the place where that house was, behold it was a marsh.
[10] These things which I saw and heard, I saw and heard in the wakefulness of my body and at the same time of my spirit; for the Lord has so united my spirit to my body, that I may be in both at the same time. It was of the Divine auspices of the Lord, that I came to those houses, and that they then deliberated concerning these things, and that it took place as it is described.
484. His adjiciam tria Memorabilia, quae contigerunt in mundo spirituali. PRIMUM MEMORABILE fuit: -
Quondam ibi audivi sonum sicut molae; erat in plaga ejus septentrionali. Primum miratus quid hoc, sed recordatus sum quod per "molam" et "molere" in Verbo intelligatur ex Verbo inquirere quod inservit doctrinae (794). Quare accessi ad locum ubi auditus est ille sonus; et cum prope eram, evanescebat sonus, et tunc videbam lacunatum quid supra terram, in quod patebat aditus per antrum; quo viso descendi et intravi.
Et ecce erat camera, in qua Vidi virum senem sedentem inter libros, tenentem ante se Verbum, et inquirentem inde quod inserviebat doctrinae ejus; schedulae jacebant circum, quibus inservientia inscripsit: in camera contigua erant scribae, qui schedulas colligebant, et integrae chartae mandabant. Quaesivi primum de libris circum eum.
Dixit, quod omnes agerent de Fide justificante, "profunde illi qui ex Suionia et Danemarkia sunt, profundius illi qui ex Alemannia, et adhuc profundius illi qui ex Britannia, ac profundissime illi qui ex Batavia:" et addidit, quod discrepent in variis, sed quod in Articulo de Justificatione et Salvatione per Solam Fidem, omnes conveniant. Postea dixit mihi, quod ex Verbo nunc colligat hoc primum fidei justificantis quod Deus Pater exciderit Gratia erga Genus humanum propter iniquitates ejus, et quod ideo Divina necessitas ad salvandum homines fuerit, ut fieret satisfactio, reconciliatio, propitiatio, mediatio per aliquem qui in se susciperet damnationem justitiae, et quod hoc nullatenus potuisset fieri quam per Unicum Suum Filium; et quod postquam hoc factum est, apertus sit aditus ad Deum Patrem propter Ipsum. Et dixit, "Video et vidi quod hoc secundum omnem rationem sit: quomodo alioquin potuisset Deus Pater adiri, nisi per fidem in id meritum Filii: nunc etiam inveni quod hoc quoque sit secundum Scripturam."
Audivi haec, et obstupui quod dixerit id esse secundum rationem et secundum Scripturam, cum tamen est contra rationem et contra Scripturam, quod etiam aperte ei dixi.
Ille tunc in excandescentia zeli sui regessit, "Quomodo potes ita loqui."
Quare aperui mentem meam, dicens, "Annon contra rationem est cogitare, quod Deus Pater exciderit Gratia erga Genus humanum, et reprobaverit illud. Estne Divina Gratia attributum Divinae Essentiae; quare excidere Gratia foret excidere Divina Sua Essentia, et excidere Divina Sua Essentia foret non magis esse Deus. Num potest Deus abalienari a Se Ipso. Crede mihi, quod Gratia a parte Dei, sicut est infinita, etiam sit aeterna. Gratia Dei a parte hominis potest amitti, si non recipit illam, sed nusquam a parte Dei; si Gratia a Deo recederet, actum foret cum universo Caelo et cum universo Genere humano, usque adeo, ut homo non quoad aliquod minimum ejus foret homo amplius; quare permanet Gratia a parte Dei in aeternum, non modo erga Angelos et Homines, sed etiam erga ipsum Diabolum. Cum hoc secundum rationem est, cur dicis quod ad Deum Patrem unicus accessus sit per fidem in meritum Filii, cum tamen perpetuus accessus est per Gratiam. Sed cur dicis accessum ad Deum Patrem propter Filium, et cur non ad Deum Patrem per Filium: estne Filius Mediator et Salvator: cur non adis Ipsum Mediatorem et Salvatorem; estne Ille Deus et Homo. Quis in terris adit immediate aliquem Caesarem, Regem aut Principem; annon procurator et introductor erit. Scisne quod Dominus in mundum venerit, ut Ipse introducat ad Patrem, et quod non detur nisi per Ipsum accessus. Inquire nunc in Scriptura, et visurus es quod hoc sit secundum illam, et quod tua via ad Patrem sit contra Scripturam, sicut est contra rationem. Dico tibi etiam, quod sit protervitas scandere ad Deum Patrem, et non per Ipsum Qui in sinu Patris est, ac Solus apud Illum. Anne legisti Johannem 14:6."
His auditis, senex ille excanduit in tantum, ut exsiliret e solio, et clamaret ad scribas suos, ut me ejicerent; et cum actutum ex me ipso egressus sum, projecit post me extra fores librum, quem forte manus ejus apprehendit, et ille liber erat Verbum.
SECUNDUM MEMORABILE fuit hoc: -
Postquam egressus sum, audivi iterum stridorem, sed sicut duorum lapidum molarium collidentium inter se. Accessi ad sonum, et evanescebat.
Et vidi angustam portam tendentem oblique deorsum in quoddam lacunar divisum in cellulas, in quarum unaquavis sedebant duo, qui etiam ex Verbo colligebant confirmantia pro Fide; unus colligebat et alter scribebat, et hoc alternis.
Accessi ad unam cellulam, et steti in ostio, et quaesivi, "Quid vos colligitis et scribitis."
Dicebant, "De Actu Justificationis seu de Fide Actu, quae est ipsa Fides justificans, vivificans et salvans, et caput doctrinae in Christianismo."
Et tunc dixi ad illum, "Dic mihi aliquod signum Actus, quando Fides illa in cor ac in animam hominis infertur."
Respondit, "Signum Actus est in momento, cum homo percitus dolore quod damnatus sit, cogitat de Christo quod damnationem Legis abstulerit, et hoc meritum Ipsius cum fiducia apprehendit, et cum hoc in cogitatione adit Deum Patrem et orat."
Tunc dixi, "Fit ita Actus, et est hoc momentum;" et quaesivi, "Quomodo comprehendam, quod dicitur de hoc Actu, quod ad illum non concurrat aliquid hominis plus quam concurreret 1si foret stipes aut lapis, et quod homo quoad illum Actum nihil possit inchoare, velle, intelligere, cogitare, operari, cooperari, se applicare et accommodare; dic mihi quomodo hoc cohaeret cum dictis tuis, quod Actus tunc incidat cum homo cogitat de jure Legis, de damnatione ejus a Christo sublata, de fiducia ex qua apprehendit id Ipsius meritum, et in cogitatione de hoc adit Deum Patrem et orat; fiuntque omnia illa ab homine sicut ab ipso."
Sed dixit, "Non fiunt active ab homine, sed passive."
Et respondi, "Quomodo potest quis cogitare, fiduciam habere, ac orare passive. Aufer homini activum aut reactivum tunc, annon etiam aufers receptivum, ita omne, et cum omni ipsum Actum. Quid tunc fit tuus Actus, nisi pure ideale quod vocatur 'ens rationis.' Scio quod non credas cum quibusdam talem Actum dari solum apud praedestinatos, qui nihil quicquam de infusione fidei apud se sciunt; hi possunt ludere talis, et inquirere num sit. Quare, mi amice, crede quod homo in rebus fidei operetur et cooperetur sicut a se ipso, et quod absque illa cooperatione, Actus fidei, quem vocasti caput doctrinae et religionis, non sit nisi quam statua uxor Lothi, tinniens ex mero sale stricta penna scribae aut ungue digiti ejus, (Luca 17:32). Hoc dixi, quia facitis vosmet ipsos quoad Actum illum similes statuis."
Cum hoc: dixi, surrexit, et sumpsit lychnuchum vi manus conjecturus in faciem meam; at subito tunc exstincto lychno et facta caligine, conjecit in frontem sodalis; et abivi ridens.
TERTIUM MEMORABILE hoc fuit: -
In plaga septentrionali mundi spiritualis audivi sicut strepitum aquarum. Quare illuc accessi; et cum prope eram, cessavit strepitus, et audivi sonorum sicut ex congregatione. Et tunc visa est domus foraminosa, circumcincta macerie, e qua auditum est sonorum illud. Accessi, et erat ibi ostiarius, quem quaesivi, "Quinam ibi."
Dixit, quod "Essent sapientum sapientes, qui inter se concludunt res supranaturales;" loquebatur ita ex simplici sua fide.
Et dixi, "Liceatne intrare."
Dixit quod liceat, "Modo ne aliquid loquaris; possum admittere, quia ex venia admitto gentiles qui in ostio mecum stent."
Quare intravi, et ecce erat circus et in ejus medio pulpitum, et caetus sapientum ita dictorum ventilabant arcana fidei; et tunc materia seu propositio ventilationi subjecta fuit, Novum Bonum, quod homo in Statu Justificationis per fidem, seu in Progressione ejus post Actum, facit, sit Bonum Religionis, vel non. Dixerunt unanimiter quod per Bonum Religionis intelligatur bonum quod confert ad salutem.
Ventilatio acris fuit; sed praevaluerunt qui dixerunt, quod bona quae homo in Statu seu Progressione fidei facit, sint modo bona moralia, civilia et politica, quae nihil ad salutem conferunt, sed solummodo fides. Et confirmaverunt illud ita: "Quomodo potest aliquod opus hominis conjungi cum gratuito; fitne salvatio gratis. Quomodo potest aliquod bonum hominis conjungi cum merito Christi; estne per id unice salvatio. Et quomodo potest operatio hominis conjungi cum operatione Spiritus Sancti; facitne ille omnia absque ope hominis. Suntne illa tria unice salvifica in Actu fidei, permanentque etiam illa tria ut unice salvifica in Statu seu Progressione fidei. Quare bonum accessorium ab homine nequaquam potest vocari Bonum Religionis, quod, ut dictum est, conferat ad salutem; sed si quis id facit propter salutem, potius vocandum est Malum Religionis."
Stabant bini Gentiles juxta ostiarium in vestibulo, et audiverunt haec, et dicebant inter se, "His non est aliqua Religio; quis non videt, quod bonum facere proximo propter Deum, ita cum Deo et a Deo, sit quod vocatur Religio." Et alter dixit, "Fides illorum infatuavit illos."
Et tunc quaesiverunt ostiarium, "Quinam sunt illi."
Dixit ostiarius, Sunt sapientes Christiani."
Et responderunt, "Garris, mentiris; sunt ludiones; ita loquuntur." Et ego abivi.
Et cum post tempus spectavi ad locum, ubi fuit domus illa, ecce erat palus.
Haec, quae vidi et audivi, in vigilia Corporis mei et simul spiritus mei vidi et audivi; ita enim Dominus univit spiritum corpori meo, ut simul in utroque sim. Quod ad illas domos venerim, et quod tunc deliberaverint de rebus illis, et quod factum sit sicut describitur, fuit ex Auspicio Divino Domini.
Footnotes:
1. concurreret pro "concurrit"