161.记事三：
有一次在灵界，我听见北部地区有类似磨坊里的噪音。刚开始，我还想知道这是什么，但想起磨坊和碾磨表示从圣言寻求对教义的支持。于是，我就往听见噪音的地方去。待我走近，噪音消失了，只见地上有一个拱形屋顶，接近它要经过一个洞穴。一看到它我便下来进去了。那里有一间房屋，我看见里面有一个老人坐在书堆里，拿着他面前的圣言，从中寻找支持他教义的经文。他将这些经文抄在纸条上，将纸条搁在地上。隔壁房间有抄写员，他们正收集纸条，把上面的内容誊写在干净的纸张上。我先问了问他周围是些什么书。他说，这些书全都是有关称义之信的。“瑞典和丹麦的书深奥些，德国的更深奥，英国的尤为深奥，最深奥的是荷兰的书。”他补充说，它们在各个方面都不同，但在唯信称义和得救这一点上是一致的。他继续说，他正从圣言获取支持，首先支持称义之信这个信条，即父神因人类的罪而收回祂对人类的恩典。因此，为了拯救世人，神必须满意，接受和解，获得安慰，并且得有一个人作为调解人担当公义的诅咒。这只能通过祂的独生子，而无法以其它途径做得到。这一切成就后，通向父神的道路为儿子的缘故就敞开了。因为我们祷告说：“父啊，为了儿子的缘故怜悯我们吧。”他说：“我明白，并且早就这样做了，这既符合正常理性，也符合圣经。除了信子的功德外，还有什么办法能靠近父神？”
听到这里，我惊讶于他竟然声称这样做既符合理性，也符合圣经。而事实上，如我所清楚告诉他的，这既违背理性，也违背圣经。这话使得他激情爆发，反驳道：“你怎么能这样说。”于是，我阐明自己的观点，说：“认为父神会收回祂对人类的恩典，谴责它，并切断与它的联系，这岂不违背正常理性？”神圣恩典岂不是神性本质的一种属性？因此，收回恩典就是收回祂的神性本质，这意味着祂的神性本质不再是神。神怎么可能疏远祂自己呢？相信我，神的恩典是无限的，因而也是永恒的。人若不接受它，就有可能失去神的恩典，但神永远不会收回祂的恩典。若神的恩典被拿走，整个天堂和人类也就到头了。因此，神的恩典会永远常存，这恩典不仅针对天使和世人，甚至还针对地狱里的魔鬼。这既然符合理性，你为何说接近父神的唯一途径就是通过信子的功德呢？而事实上，通过恩典接近祂的途径是永远敞开的。
“不过，你为何说为了子的缘故靠近父神，而不说通过子靠近父神呢？难道子不是中保和救主吗？你为何不靠近中保和救主自己呢？难道祂不是神和人？在世上，谁能直接觐见帝王或君王？不得找一个引见他的使者吗？难道你不知道主降世是为了祂可以把我们引到父那里，并且若不通过主，靠近父是不可能的？当你直接靠近主自己时，这条路永远敞开，因为祂在父里面，父在祂里面。查阅圣经，你就会明白，这符合圣经，你直接靠近父则违背圣经，就像这违背正常理性。我还告诉你，若不通过父怀里的主（唯独祂与父同在），上到父神那里去是放肆的行为，难道你没读过约翰福音（14:6）？”听到这里，那老人恼羞成怒，从椅子上跳起来，对他的抄写员们叫喊说把我赶出去。我立刻自动出去，这时，他手里正好有一本书，便朝我身后扔去，扔到了门外。这本书就是圣言。
161. 第三個經歷:
有一次在靈界, 我聽到聲音如同磨粉, 聲音來自北面。開始時, 我奇怪所為何事, 不過我後來記起, 磨和碾磨表示從聖言的教導中尋求幫助。
於是我順著聲音來到那裡, 當我走近時, 聲音消失了。然後我看見地面之上有一個拱型屋頂蓋著, 到那個地方必須穿過一個洞穴, 於是我往下走進洞穴。我驚奇地發現剛才所見之處有一間屋子, 一個老人坐在一堆書中, 手持聖言於面前。他在尋找能支持他神學觀點的經文。他周圍的地上是一些注明經文出處的紙片, 以及他寫的注解。在隔壁的房間裡, 有幾個抄寫員, 收集那些紙片, 然後將完整的內容抄寫在整張的紙上。
首先, 我詢問老人的周邊都是些什麼書。他說這些書都是討論稱義之信方面的話題:"那些來自瑞典和丹麥的書較為深奧, 德國的更深奧, 英國來的更甚, 最深奧的是那些來自荷蘭的著作。"
"它們的分別有許多方面, "他接著說:"但有一點是統一的:唯獨因信稱義並得救。"
他繼續說, 他現在正從聖言中收集經文來支持這稱義之信的第一條教義:父上帝因為人類的罪行而收回祂對人類的恩惠; 為了拯救人類, 上帝需要某一位向祂提供贖罪,調解,勸慰和代求; 這一位還要承擔人類當受的詛咒; 除了父的獨生子, 沒有誰可以承擔這些。當這些成就後, 因為子的緣故, 通往上帝的道路被打開, 所以我們說:'父啊, 因著禰兒子的緣故, 施憐憫給我們吧。'"
"我明白, "他接著說:"並且一直相信這樣的觀點符合理性, 也符合聖言。除了通過信子的功德之外, 人還能怎樣靠近父上帝呢？"
[2]聽到他說, 這些觀點符合理性, 還與聖言相符, 我甚覺驚訝。於是坦白告訴他, 不僅不合理性, 也與違背聖言。這可把他激怒了, 反駁說:"你怎麼可以這樣說？"
於是, 我向他敞言自己的觀點, 說:"父上帝收回祂對人類的恩惠,向人類施怒,切斷與人類之間的聯繫, 這合乎道理嗎？收回恩惠, 等於收回神性的本質; 收回神性之本質, 就意味著不再是上帝了。上帝怎能與祂自己疏遠？相信我, 上帝的恩惠是無限, 且是永遠。只有人不接受上帝的恩惠, 不存在上帝收回恩惠。倘若恩惠可以離開上帝, 那就是整個天國和全人類的滅亡。因此, 上帝的恩惠對祂而言, 是永遠不停止地由祂發出。不僅對天人和人, 對魔鬼和地獄也是一樣。人人可以藉著祂的恩惠來接近上帝, 如同我以上所說, 為何你說只唯有通過信祂兒子的功德方可接近上帝呢？
[3]"為何你說, 是為了子的緣故而通往上帝, 而不是說, 通過子而通往上帝呢？子不是中保和拯救者嗎？你為什麼不徑直接觸這中保和拯救者自己呢？祂既是上帝,也是人。在地上, 人們直接能面見皇帝或國王嗎？你需要個中間人的引見。主降到人間, 為了引我們見父, 除非通過主, 再沒有通路。當你徑直走向主自己時, 這條路是永遠敞開的, 因為祂在父裡面,父在祂裡面。查考聖言吧, 你會發現這樣是符合聖言的, 而你所說的通向上帝之路是違背聖言的, 也是違背常理的。我還告訴你, 除非通過父懷中的獨生子——惟有祂與父同在, 任何試圖攀向父上帝的方法都是自以為是。你沒有讀過約翰福音14:6？"
聽到這裡, 那老人惱羞成怒, 憤然站起, 指使他的抄錄員們趕我出去。當我自己走出去時, 他抄起一本書扔向我, 落在門檻處, 那本書就是聖言。
161. The third memorable occurrence. In the spiritual world I once heard the sound of a mill. It was in the northern area. At first I wondered what it was, but then I remembered that a mill and grinding grain mean research in the Word to support a particular doctrinal perspective.
I went to the place where I had heard the sound coming from. As I came near, the sound disappeared. Then I saw an arched roof just above the ground. To enter the place you had to go through a cave, so I went down and in. To my surprise, there was a room there where I saw an old man sitting among books, holding the Word in front of him. He was searching through it for anything that would serve his doctrinal perspective. Little slips of paper were lying all around him on which he had written applicable quotations. In the next room over there were copyists who were collecting the slips of paper and committing what was written on them to a full sheet of paper.
First I asked the man about the books around him. He said, "They all deal with the topic of the faith that justifies us. The works from Sweden and Denmark deal with it in depth; the work from Germany in greater depth; the works from Britain in even greater depth; but the profoundest of them all come from Holland. "
"They disagree in various other ways," he added, "but on the point that we are justified and saved by faith alone they all agree. "
Then he said that he was at that time collecting passages from the Word on the crux of the faith that justifies us. "The crux," he said, "is that God the Father lapsed from an attitude of grace toward the human race because of its wrongdoing. Therefore in order to save the human race there was a divine necessity for someone to provide satisfaction, reconciliation, appeasement, and mediation. This someone needed to bear the damnation that justice required; and no one could bear this except God's only Son. After this was accomplished, access opened up to God the Father on account of the Son, for we say, 'Father, have mercy on us on account of your Son. '"
He added, 'I continue, as always, to perceive this point of view as in accord with reason and Scripture. How else could God the Father be approached except through our faith in the Son's merit?"
[2] As I heard this, I felt astounded that he would say it accords with reason and Scripture when in reality it goes against reason and Scripture. In fact, I candidly told him so.
With sudden anger he countered, "How can you say that?"
So I opened my mind to him and said, "Surely it goes against reason to think that God the Father lapsed from an attitude of grace toward the human race, rejected us, and cut off communication with us. Isn't divine grace an attribute of the divine essence? If so, then to lapse from an attitude of grace would be to lapse from the divine essence, and lapsing from the divine essence would mean that God wouldn't be God anymore. Can God be alienated from himself? Believe me, as grace on God's part is infinite, it is also eternal. (We are capable, of course, of losing God's grace if we don't accept it.) If grace were to leave God, that would be the end of all heaven and the whole human race. That is why grace on God's part goes on forever, a grace not only toward angels and people but also toward devils in hell. Since what I have said accords with reason, how can you say our only access to God the Father is through faith in the merit of his Son, when there is perpetual access through grace?
[3] "And why do you speak of access to God the Father on account of the Son? Why not through the Son? Isn't the Son the Mediator and Savior? Why wouldn't you go to the Mediator and Savior himself? He is both God and human. Does anyone on earth go straight to some czar, monarch, or member of the royal family? You need a liaison to introduce you. The Lord came into the world to introduce us to the Father. There is no access except through the Lord. The access is perpetual when you go directly to the Lord himself, since he is in the Father and the Father is in him. Search in Scripture now and you'll see that this accords with it, while your way to the Father goes against Scripture as it also goes against reason. I'll also tell you that it is outrageous to climb up to God the Father instead of going through the One who is close to the Father's heart and who alone is with him. Haven't you read John 14:6?"
On hearing this the old man became so angry that he jumped out of his chair and shouted to his copyists to throw me out. When I walked out right away on my own, he picked up a book that happened to be at hand and threw it at me from the doorway. The book was the Word.
161. The third experience 1 .
Once in the spiritual world I heard a noise like a mill; it was in the northern region. To begin with I wondered what it was, but then I remembered that a mill and milling mean seeking support for doctrine from the Word. So I approached the place where I had heard the noise, and when I came close the noise disappeared. Then I saw a covered area above ground, the approach to which was through a cave. On seeing this I went down and went inside.
There was a room there in which I saw an old man sitting among his books, holding a copy of the Word in front of him and looking out passages in it in support of his doctrine. Slips of paper were lying around, on which he had copied out supporting passages. In the next room were scribes, who were collecting the slips and writing out what was on them on clean sheets of paper. I asked first about the books he had around him.
He said that they were all on the subject of justifying faith. 'Those from Sweden and Denmark are profound, more profound those from Germany, still more profound those from Britain, and the most profound are those from Holland.' He added that they differed in various respects, but all agreed on the subject of justification and salvation by faith alone. He went on to say that he was now gathering support from the Word for the first tenet of justifying faith, that God the Father withdrew His favour from the human race on account of its wrong-doing, and God therefore needed in order to save men to receive satisfaction, be reconciled, propitiated and have as mediator someone who would take upon himself the righteous condemnation; and there was no way this could be done except through His only Son. When this had been done, the way was opened up to God the Father for His sake, for we say: 'Father, have mercy on us for the sake of the Son.' 'I see,' he said, 'and have long done so, that this is in accordance with all sound reason and Scripture. How else could anyone approach God the Father, except through faith in the merit of the Son?'
[2] On hearing this I was amazed that he asserted it to be in accordance with sound reason and Scripture, when in fact it is contrary to both, as I told him plainly. This provoked an outburst of zeal and he retorted: 'How can you talk like that?'
So I stated my opinion and said: 'Is it not contrary to sound reason to think that God the Father withdrew His favour from the human race, reproved it and cut off communication with it? Surely Divine favour is an attribute of the Divine Essence? So withdrawing His favour would be withdrawing His Divine Essence, and that would mean ceasing to be God. Surely God cannot become estranged from Himself? Believe me, favour on God's part is both infinite and eternal. God's favour can be lost on man's part, if he fails to accept it, [but never on God's part]. 2 If the favour shown by God were taken away, it would be the end of the whole of heaven and the whole human race. Therefore favour on God's part is shown permanently and for ever, not only to angels and men, but even to the devils in hell. Since this is in accordance with sound reason, why do you say that the sole approach to God the Father is through faith in the Son's merit, when in fact God's favour ensures that the approach is perpetually open?
[3] 'But why do you talk about approaching God the Father for the sake of the Son, rather than through the Son? Is not the Son the mediator and saviour? Why do you not approach the mediator and saviour Himself? Is He not God and Man? On earth does anyone approach directly any emperor, king or prince? Surely he finds a chamberlain to introduce him? Do you not know that the Lord came into the world so that He should introduce us to the Father, and that it is impossible to approach Him except through the Lord? This approach is perpetually open when you directly approach the Lord Himself, because He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. Now consult Scripture and you will see that this is in accordance with it, and that your approach to the Father is contrary to it, just as it is contrary to sound reason. I tell you too, it is presumptuous to go up to God the Father, except through Him who is in the Father's bosom, and who alone is with Him. Have you not read John 14:6?'
On hearing this the old man was so enraged he jumped up from his chair and shouted to his scribes to throw me out; and when I had immediately of my own accord gone out, he threw after me out of the door the book which he happened to be holding in his hand. The book was the Word.
Footnotes:
1. This section is repeated from Apocalypse Revealed 484.
2. These words are inserted from the earlier use of the passage in Apocalypse Revealed 484.
161. Third Memorable Relation:
In the spiritual world I once heard a noise like that of a mill; it was in the northern quarter. At first I wondered what It was: but I called to mind that the meaning of a mill and of grinding is to seek from the Word what is serviceable for doctrine. I therefore went towards the place where the noise was heard, and when I came near it stopped; and I then saw a sort of arched roof above the ground, to which there was an entrance through a cavern; seeing which I descended, and entered.
And behold, there was a room in which I saw an old man sitting among books, holding the Word before him and searching out from it what would be serviceable for his doctrine. Pieces of paper were lying around, on which he had written whatever he could use. In an adjoining room were copyists who were collecting the papers and copying what was written on them on a full-sized sheet. I first asked him about the books around him.
He said that they all treated of Justifying Faith; those from Sweden and Denmark profoundly; those from Germany more profoundly; those from Britain still more so; and most profoundly of all the ones from Holland. And he added that on several points they differed; but in the article on justification and salvation by faith alone they all agreed. He afterwards said that he was then collecting from the Word this first principle of justifying faith, that God the Father ceased to be gracious towards the human race on account of its iniquities, and it was therefore a Divine necessity for man's salvation that satisfaction, reconciliation, propitiation, and mediation should be effected by some one who would take upon himself the damnation enjoined by justice; and that this could never have been done except by His only Son; but having once been done there was a way of approach open to God the Father for the Son's sake; for we pray, "Father, be merciful to us for the sake of Thy Son." And he said, "I see and have seen, that this is in accordance with all reason and Scripture. By what other way than by faith in the merits of the Son could God the Father be approached?"
[2] I listened to this, and was amazed that he should declare it to be in accord with reason and Scripture, when yet it is contrary to both, and this I plainly told him.
In the heat of his zeal he then rejoined, "How can you say that?"
Therefore I opened my mind to him, saying, "Is it not contrary to reason to think that God the Father failed of grace towards the human race, and rejected and excommunicated it? Is not Divine grace an attribute of the Divine essence? Wherefore failing of grace would be failing of Divine essence; and failing of His Divine essence would be to be no longer God. Is it possible for God to be alienated from Himself? Believe me, as grace on God's part is infinite, so it is also eternal. On men's part God's grace may be lost if man does not accept it [but never on God's part]. But if grace were to depart from God there would be an end to the whole heaven and the whole human race. Wherefore on God's part grace endures forever, not only towards angels and men, but even towards the devils in hell. Since this accords with reason, why do you say that the only access to God the Father is through faith in the merits of the Son, when yet there is perpetually an access to Him through grace?
[3] But why do you say, access to God the Father for the sake of the Son, instead of through the Son? Is not the Son the Mediator and Savior? Why do you not go to the Mediator and Savior Himself Is He not both God and Man? On earth who goes directly to an emperor, king, or prince? Must there not be some one to procure admission and introduce him? Do you not know that the Lord came into the world that He might introduce men to the Father, and that only through Him is there any access to the Father; while this access is perpetual when you go directly to the Lord Himself, since He is in the Father and the Father in Him? Search now in Scripture, and you will see that this is in accordance with Scripture, while your way to the Father is contrary to Scripture as it is contrary to reason. I tell you, moreover, it is a presumption to climb up thus to God the Father, and not through Him who is in the bosom of the Father, and who alone is present with the Father. Have you not readJohn 14:6 ?"
Hearing this, the old man became so angry that he sprang from his seat and shouted to his copyists to put me out; and when I had gone out immediately of my own accord, he threw after me out of the door a book that he happened to lay hand upon, and that book was the Word.
161. The third experience. I once heard in the northern region of the spiritual world a noise like the grinding of a mill. At first I wondered what this might be, but I remembered that a mill, and grinding, signify to search the Word for what is serviceable to doctrine. I therefore approached the place from which the sound was heard, and when I came near, it ceased. Then I observed a chamber with a domed roof rising above the ground, the entrance to which was through a cave. On seeing this I descended and entered. In the room I saw an old man seated at his books, holding before him the Word, and searching therein for confirmations of his doctrine. Lying around were small slips of paper on which he wrote the passages that served his purpose. In an adjacent room were scribes who collected the slips and transferred what was written on them to a large page. I first questioned him concerning the books that were around him. He replied that they all treated of a justifying faith, those from Sweden 1 and Denmark entering deeply into the subject, those from Germany more deeply, those from Britain still more deeply of all. He added that while they differed on various points they all agreed in the article concerning Justification and Salvation by faith alone. He then said that he was at this first principle of justifying faith: "God the Father ceased to show mercy towards mankind on account of their iniquities. Therefore, in order to effect the salvation of men, the Divine necessity arose that satisfaction, reconciliation, propitiation and mediation should be made by some one who would take upon himself the condemnation required by justice; and this could not be done except by His only Son. After this was accomplished a way of approach was opened up to the Father for the sake of the Son; for we say, 'Father, have mercy on us for the sake of thy Son.'" He continued: "I have long seen that this is according to all reason and Scripture, for how otherwise could God the Father be approached but by faith in the merit of His Son?"
[2] As I listened to this I was amazed to hear him say that it was according to reason and also to Scripture, when yet, as I plainly told him, it is contrary to both.
Then in the heat of his zeal he replied: "How can you say so?" I therefore explained myself saying: "Is it not contrary to reason to suppose that God the Father ceased to be gracious towards mankind, and condemned and excommunicated them? Is not Divine grace an attribute of the Divine Essence? To cease to be gracious, therefore, would be to depart from the Divine Essence, and this would mean that He would be no longer God. Is it possible for God to be alienated from Himself? Believe me, grace on God's part, as it is infinite, is also eternal. On man's part it may be lost, if he does not accept it; but if grace were to depart from God, the whole of heaven as well as the whole of mankind would perish. Therefore, grace on God's part endures to eternity, not only towards angels and men, but even towards devils in hell. Since this then 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] "Moreover, why do you say, access to God the Father for the sake of the Son, and not through the Son? Is not the Son the Mediator and Savior? Why then do you not approach Him who is Mediator and Savior? Is He not God and Man? On earth who approaches directly a Caesar, a king, or a prince? Will there not be required one to procure admission and introduce him? Do you not know that the Lord came into the world that He might introduce us to the Father, and that there is no access to Him except through the Lord, access that is perpetual if you directly approach the Lord Himself, since He is in the Father, and the Father in Him? Search now the Scriptures, and you will see that this is in agreement with them; and that your way to the Father is contrary to them as it is contrary to reason. I tell you further that it is presumption to climb up to God the Father and not to approach through Him who is in the bosom of the Father, and who alone is with Him. Have you not read John 14:6?" When the old man heard this he flew into such a rage that he sprang from his seat, and called to his scribes to put me out. As I walked out at once of my own accord he threw after me out of the door the first Book that he happened to lay his hand on: and that Book was the Word.
Footnotes:
1. Suecia, Sweden.
161. TERTIUM MEMORABILE.
Quondam in Mundo Spirituali audivi sonum sicut Molae; erat in Plaga ejus Septentrionali: primum miratus sum quid hoc, sed recordatus sum, quod per Molam et Molere intelligatur ex Verbo inquirere quod inservit Doctrinae, quare accessi ad locum, ubi auditus est ille Sonus, et cum prope eram, evanescebat sonus; et tunc videbam lacunatum quid supra terram, ad 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 quid inserviebat doctrinae ejus; schedulae jacebant circum, quibus inservientia inscripsit; in Camera contigua erant scribae, qui schedulas colligebant, et illa quae super illis scripta erant, integrae chartae mandabant. Quaesivi primum de Libris circum illum; dixit, quod omnes agerent de FIDE JUSTIFICANTE, profunde illi ex Suionia et Danemarchia, profundius illi qui ex Germania, et adhuc profundius illi qui ex Britannia, et profundissime illi qui ex Batavia; et addidit, quod in variis discrepent, sed in Articulo de Justificatione et Salvatione per solam fidem, omnes conveniant. Postea dixit, 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 potuerit fieri quam per unicum suum Filium; et quod postquam hoc factum est, apertus sit accessus ad Deum Patrem propter Ipsum, nam dicimus, Pater miserere nostri propter Filium; et dixit, video et vidi quod hoc sit secundum omnem rationem et scripturam; quomodo alioquin potuisset Deus Pater adiri, nisi per fidem in meritum Filii.
[2] Audivi hoc, 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, dicens, annon contra rationem est cogitare, quod Deus Pater exciderit gratia pro Genere humano, et reprobaverit et excommunicaverit 1 illud; estne Divina Gratia attributum Divinae Essentiae, quare excidere gratia foret excidere Divina Essentia, et excidere Divina sua Essentia foret non magis esse Deus; num potest Deus abalienari a Seipso; 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]; 2 si gratia a Deo recederet, actum foret cum Universo Coelo et cum universo Genere humano; quare permanet gratia a parte Dei in aeternum, non modo erga Angelos et Homines, sed etiam erga diabolos in Inferno: cum hoc secundum rationem est, cur dicis quod ad Deum Patrem unicus accessus sit per fidem in meritum Filii, cum tamen perpetuus est per gratiam.
[3] Sed cur dicis accessum ad Deum Patrem propter Filium, et non 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, et quod hic accessus perpetuus sit, quum immediate adis ipsum Dominum, quoniam Ipse est in Patre et Pater in Ipso; inquire nunc in Scriptura, et visurus es, quod hoc sit secundum illam, et quod tua via ad Patrem sit contra illam, sicut est contra rationem; dico tibi etiam, quod sit protervitas scandere ad Deum Patrem, et non per Ipsum, qui in sinu Patris est, et solus apud Illum; anne legisti Johannes 14:6. His auditis Senex ille excanduit in tantum, ut exsiliret solio, et clamaret ad Scribas suos, ut me ejicerent, et cum actutum a me ipso egressus sum, projecit post me extra fores Librum, quem forte manus ejus apprehendit, et ille Liber erat Verbum.
Footnotes:
1. Prima editio: excommunicaverih.
2. Sic Apocalypsis Revelata 484