3656. About David and a Pontiff
It was shown that David desires to be the supreme one in heaven, for that desire is inherent in the fact that he understood himself to be meant in the psalms. He is sometimes permitted to come aloft and thus imagine himself to be in the highest heaven, as he did yesterday and today. Having been let out of the earth of lower beings, he suddenly appeared on high opposite [to his former location]. But it is noteworthy that when he is struggling out to heaven, or to the highest point, he appears also to others to be climbing steps, as if by the rungs of a ladder, although here is no ladder. And he does not rest then until he seems to have reached the highest point, where he is seen swooning with fear lest he fall headlong - which sensation I also shared by communication.
3656. CONCERNING DAVID AND A PONTIFF. 1
It was shown that David was desirous of being chief in heaven, for such a cupidity cleaves to him from his understanding himself [to be spoken of] in the Psalms. It is therefore sometimes permitted him to ascend, and thus to suppose himself to be in the highest heaven - an incident occurring today. Being sent up [or projected] from the lower earth, he was suddenly stopped in his ascent by some opposing force, but it is remarkable, that when projected upwards into heaven, or to the loftiest height, he appears to be mounting by other steps, as by the grades of a ladder, although there is no ladder, nor does he rest till he seems to himself to have reached the highest point of ascent, where he was afterwards seen, though affected with a kind of fainting fear lest he should fall headlong, which I also perceived by communication.
Footnotes:
1. We cannot of course but be aware, that the contents of this and two or three succeeding articles are calculated to give somewhat of a severe shock to the preconceptions and prejudices of the Christian world. So deep-seated and inveterate is the belief in the personal sanctity of the individuals who were employed as amanuenses of the Divine Spirit in penning the sacred books, that what is here said of David will be apt to be regarded not only as a gross defamation of a good and holy man, but as prima facie evidence of the general falsity and absurdity of Swedenborg's representations of the other life. It can scarcely fail to elicit the prompt reply, that such a statement is certainly untrue, and what confidence, therefore, can be reposed in any declaration made by such a witness in relation to things which he affirms of the spiritual world? "If the state of David in that world is such as is here described, he could not have possessed the character in this world which has usually been ascribed to him and if the judgment of the church in all ages is to be reversed in regard to him, what reason have we to think well of the lot of the distinguished personages whose names adorn the roll of Scripture worthies? Indeed, what evidence can any man have of his own good estate in the sight of God, and what security of salvation in the world to come?" The assured and unmoved receiver of these disclosures can cherish, perhaps, but a faint hope of meeting, in such a way as to repel or neutralize, the force of the objections urged on this score, and thus of turning aside the torrent of obloquy which the statements here made will scarcely fail to throw upon the head of their author. Still, as he has had to encounter and overcome the full weight of the objection in his own case, he would fain solicit the ear of skepticism for a brief exhibition of the grounds upon which his original repugnance to Swedenborg's statements was countervailed.
1. A reason is fairly to be demanded for Swedenborg's thus representing the state of David in the other life, if the statement be not true. Reared in the bosom of the Christian church, and naturally sharing its traditional biases, it is difficult to conceive of the mental process by which he should have formed so disparaging an estimate of the character of David, unless it were in consequence of his being supernaturally instructed in the truth. To say that he had in some way conceived a prejudice against him, and that this prejudice had colored his visions in the other world, amounts to very little, so long as no solution is proffered of the grounds on which such an adverse sentiment should have established itself in his mind. The same remark is to be applied also to what is said of Paul in a subsequent part of this work.
2. The truth or falsehood of the recital here made is to be resolved back into the truth or falsehood of a leading principle affirmed by Swedenborg of the Jewish people in general, viz., that they were not in strict propriety a church, but merely the representative of a church, and this from the fact that they were characteristically a gross, external, sensual people, incapable of spiritual views. There is no adequate ground for supposing that the penmen of the Scriptures were, to any considerable extent, exceptions to this character. There is no evidence that they had, personally, a genuine spiritual insight into the genius and scope of the great truths which they were moved to utter, nor does it necessarily follow that their lives and characters were inwardly conformed to the essential spirit of the doctrines and duties which they declared. In regard to David there is reason to believe that, in giving vent to expressions which in the letter breathe wrath, cruelty, and revenge, he thus embodies his own sentiments as a man, while the internal spiritual sense speaks in reality a language directly the reverse - that of divine love and mercy. We know, moreover, of no ground to question that what Swedenborg here says of him is true namely, that, in inditing the Psalms, he applied to himself what was spiritually spoken of the Lord Messiah, and if so, it is easy to conceive that a degree of inflation may have possessed his mind, which should lead in the other life to just such manifestations as are here described. One thing at least is certain - that Swedenborg speaks, throughout his writings, as disparagingly of the Jewish race, as he does of David, and on substantially the same grounds and if he is warranted to do so in the one case, he doubtless is in the other. The disclosure in both instances has the all-important effect of separating the character of the Word from the character of the persons who wrote it, and especially of making the Psalms God's Psalms, instead of David's.
3. The general evidence of the truth of Swedenborg's revelations is too strong to be invalidated by particular passages speaking a language contrary to preconceived ideas. The proof, for instance, that our traditional ideas respecting the character of David, are true, is no stronger to the candid mind, than that which establishes the general truth of Swedenborg's relations. We are immovably firm in the conviction that no man could write as he has written, unless he had been admitted within the veil. He has uttered truth pure from the fountain of truth, and this truth thus imparted is a universal boon, property, and interest. It is the peculium of no man or body of men. Neither does it lay any special responsibilities, on the score of its vindication, upon those who may have distinguished themselves by an avowed belief of it. The adherents of Swedenborg's system do not admit that they are any more called upon to attempt the conciliation of his apparent errors with his acknowledged truths, than any other class of men. We take substantially the same ground with the Christian apologist for the scriptures, who says to the caviling sceptic, You have no right to insist upon what you call the absurdities and incredibilities of the sacred narrative until you have overthrown the accumulated positive proof of its Divine original. What does it avail to pronounce it ridiculous to suppose that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, so long as you cannot subvert the testimony which makes out the book of Jonah, and the other canonical books, to have come from God?"
So do we also say to the rejecters of thee records of the phenomena of the spiritual world. Read continuously, with an unbiased mind, the series of developments contained in this Diary, and see if you do not find as much evidence of truth in one page as you do of seeming falsity in another. If so, on what principle can you allow the assurance of truth to be nullified by the semblance of falsehood? Can a thousand falsities annihilate a single truth? We do not, of course, ask that that which appears to be a falsity shall be believed as a truth but we do demand that you shall not suffer the absolute conviction of truth, on the one hand, to be stifled by the suspicion of falsehood on the other.
It would be easy to enlarge the catalogue of reasons which weigh with New Church men for admitting the truth of these statements, however revolting to former prejudices, but they may all be summed up in one, viz., that the evidence of Swedenborg's general truth is so overwhelmingly strong as to leave their minds wholly unafflicted by particular points of assertion which may be attended with difficulty. In this case they cannot feel so sure that David was a good man, as they do that Swedenborg was a true man. -Tr.
3656. De Davide et Pontifice
Ostensum, quod David cupiat supremus esse in coelo, nam talis cupiditas inhaeret ex eo quod semet intellexerit in psalmis, quandoque ei permittitur in altum venire, et sic putare se in summo coelo esse, sicut heri et hodie, emissus ex inferiorum terra, subito sistebatur in alto ex opposito, sed memorabile est, cum is enititur in coelum seu in altissimum, quod appareat et aliis, passibus scandere, sicut per gradus scalae, quamvis non scala, nec quiescit sic priusquam sibi visus ad altissimum venisse, ubi visus dein, cum deliquio timoris, ne decideret praeceps, quod mihi quoque perceptum, per communicationem.