Notes

Notes to the Opening Biblical Quotations

¹. The Latin phrase here translated “the Son of Humankind” is Filius Hominis, traditionally rendered “the Son of Man.” Elsewhere in this edition it has sometimes been rendered “the Human-born One.” It is difficult to estimate the original range of meaning of the term; it is used in one way in the Old Testament, but in another in the New Testament. The force of the phrase is literally “someone descended from the human race,” “someone who was born human,” and therefore “someone human.” In the Old Testament, the phrase is almost always used in reference to a human being (as opposed to the Divine). Elsewhere in Daniel, for example, the term applies to Daniel himself (Daniel 8:17). Here, however, Swedenborg clearly takes the term as applying to Jesus Christ, which is arguably its usual denotation in the New Testament. (Following Swedenborg’s use of these terms, in this edition the Hebrew Scriptures are referred to as the Old Testament, and the Greek Scriptures are referred to as the New Testament.) [JSR]

². In the first edition, these two quotations occur on the verso (that is, the back) of the title page. For similarly placed scriptural quotations in Swedenborg’s theological works, see the versos of the original title pages of Secrets of Heaven (1749–1756) and Survey (1769). Swedenborg’s quotations of Scripture often show more editing and rearrangement than modern standards might allow. His Latin rendering of Revelation 21 here is a reordered combination of various verses and parts of verses. For a sense of what these quotations and their prominent placement in the work may have communicated to eighteenth-century readers, see the introduction, pages 74–75. [JSR]

Notes to §§1–3

³ (in §1). The “new heaven” and the “new church” are allusions to the quotation from Revelation 21:1 given at the beginning of the work (the new church being symbolized by the city Jerusalem). There are similar mentions of new heavens in Isaiah 65:17, 66:22, and 2 Peter 3:13. Swedenborg describes the heavens as being multiple rather than single and containing people of a variety of faiths and perspectives (see, for example, his 1764 work Divine Providence 253). Elsewhere in the present work he states that at the time of its writing he was witnessing the establishment of a new heaven—a specifically Christian heaven made up of people who had died in the recent past, arranged into numerous communities (§§107, 108, 119:3, 138). He uses the word “church” (Latin ecclesia) in a variety of senses. Sometimes it refers to a religious approach in the abstract, whether that occurs in an individual or in a group large or small; sometimes it refers more concretely to local or national Christianity, to all Protestants, or even to Christianity as a whole; and sometimes it applies even more broadly to all believers on earth of whatever faith. In this instance, however, as often elsewhere, Swedenborg is using the term historically to mean the core religious approach of a given age or era through which heaven was connected with humankind, of which he asserts there have been five major instances, in the following sequence: the earliest (or “most ancient”) church, the early (or “ancient”) church, the Jewish church, the Christian church, and the new church (see §§760, 762, 786; see also Swedenborg’s 1758 work Last Judgment 46 and notes; and Divine Providence 328). [JSR]

⁴ (in §1). This work opens with the language of simile and continues to be laden with similes throughout. In many instances, these similes are compound, in the sense that they liken one theological assertion to many concrete things or situations. Often these reflect common human experiences, but at times they are bizarre and hypothetical. The similes apparently reflect correspondences (on correspondences, see note 35); for Swedenborg’s statements about the purpose and correspondential nature of his similes, see §§131, 215, 496, and 669. Furthermore, §371:8 suggests that at least some similes could be explained in far more detail if there were room to do so. For more on the nature and structure of the similes in this work, see Rose 1994. [JSR]

⁵ (in §1). Although the notion of angels is common to many religious traditions, Swedenborg’s view of them is unusual. Rather than describing them as a genderless or separately created race, Swedenborg asserted that they were all once people in the physical universe (Last Judgment 14–22), and that they remain human in every respect after death (see his 1758 work Heaven and Hell 75; and his 1768 work Marriage Love 44:2). [JSR]

⁶ (in §1). Central to Swedenborg’s psychology is the view that a human being has multiple levels, especially levels of the mind, and that these levels can be described equally well as being “higher” and “lower” or as being “inner” and “outer” (see §214 and note 455; see also his 1763 work Divine Love and Wisdom 205–206). Although the inner and the outer levels of the mind “act together,” each level is sufficiently complete and distinct that higher levels are capable of looking objectively at what is going on in lower levels (see True Christianity 603; Secrets of Heaven 1954:2), and different levels within the same individual are capable of having opposing and conflicting values and intentions (see Divine Love and Wisdom 260; Divine Providence 111:2, 284). [JSR]

⁷ (in §1). “What is good” (Latin bonum) and “what is true” (Latin verum) and their respective equivalents “goodness,” “good,” or “the good,” and “truth” or “the true” are the most frequently occurring terms in Swedenborg’s theological works. Echoing ancient philosophical and ethical traditions, in Swedenborg’s theology these concepts stand in a complementary relationship to all things: that is, absolutely everything, whether physical, psychological, or spiritual, relates to either goodness or truth or to a “marriage” of both (or to their opposites, “evil” and “falsity”). Their complementarity is so all-encompassing that in a chapter on the two, Swedenborg defines them only in terms of each other (see his 1758 work New Jerusalem 11–19, with further references in Secrets of Heaven 20–27). In Swedenborg’s system, goodness encompasses affective qualities such as love, affection, desire, and goodwill, and corresponds to physical heat, while truth encompasses cognitive qualities such as wisdom, thought, perception, and faith, and corresponds to physical light (on “goodwill,” see note 19; on “correspondences,” see note 35). Swedenborg uses these terms almost algebraically to stand in for things ranging from the sublimely abstract to the utterly concrete (see for example §419, where goodness is explicitly defined as usefulness). [JSR]

⁸ (in §1). In Swedenborg’s works, “the Lord” refers to Jesus Christ as God. A core concept in Swedenborg’s theology is that there are not three persons in the Trinity; there is one person, whose soul is the unknowable Divine, whose human manifestation is Jesus Christ, and whose operative influence is the Holy Spirit. Of the many names and terms from philosophical and biblical backgrounds that Swedenborg uses to denote God (the Divine Being, the Divine, the Divine Human, the One, the Infinite, the First, the Creator, the Redeemer, the Savior, Jehovah [see note 9], God Shaddai [see note 80], and many more), the most frequently occurring term is “the Lord” (Latin Dominus), a title rather than a name, meaning “the one in charge,” and referring to Jesus Christ as the manifestation of the one and only God. For Swedenborg’s brief explanation of his reasons for using “the Lord,” see Secrets of Heaven 14. See also chapter 2 of the present work. [JSR]

⁹ (in §2:1). The phrase “from eternity” means before creation, that is, before time came into existence. The name “Jehovah” was often used by Swedenborg, following a Christian practice of his times, as a rendering of the tetragrammaton, hwhy (yhvh), “YHWH,” the four-letter name of God in the Hebrew Scriptures. A complex set of circumstances gave rise to the name “Jehovah.” The Hebrew alphabet originally consisted only of consonants. It was not until the eighth century of the Common Era that a complete system of diacritical marks for Hebrew vowel notation was developed. When for any reason the consonantal text was held not to be suitable for reading as it stood, the vowels of an approved reading would be added to the consonants that stood in the text, whether the number of syllables in the two words matched or not. Since the sanctity of the name of God, YHWH, was felt to preclude its being pronounced, under most circumstances the word y"nod]a (’ăōnāi), “Lord,” was substituted, and to indicate this, vowels closely resembling those of the name Adonai were added to YHWH: YeHoWaH. This combination of consonants and vowels was transliterated into Latin as “Jehovah.” (Some English Bibles since then have adopted the name “Jehovah” while others have rendered the term as “LORD,” so capitalized.) When the Hebrew text used the expression “the Lord YHWH,” however, this was read as “the Lord God,” and the divine name was given the vowels of the word ~yih{l?a (’?elōhîm), “God.” This gave rise to the relatively rare reading of the name as “Jehovih,” which Swedenborg occasionally employs (see for example §§82:2, 308), although in English Bibles it is more commonly expressed as “the Lord GOD,” so capitalized. The currently accepted scholarly reconstruction of the original pronunciation of the tetragrammaton is “Yahweh”: see Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament under “YHWH.” Swedenborg, like others, relates the meaning of the name to the concept of being or “is-ness” (see §19:1; see also §9:2–3). [GFD, JSR]

¹⁰ (in §2:1). Although Swedenborg often speaks of “hell” in the singular, he also frequently uses the plural, “hells,” by which he apparently means the many communities of hell, each of which is in effect a hell in smaller form (Heaven and Hell 542; see also §§584–588 in that work). [JSR]

¹¹ (in §2:1). The term “glorify” here may be misunderstood by today’s readers. It has two essential meanings: to deem glorious or ascribe glory to, and to render glorious or actually transform. It is the latter meaning that Swedenborg generally intends by “glorify” and “glorification” in relation to Jesus’ human nature. Swedenborg makes explicit that glorification is a rendering divine or a uniting with the Divine (see §2:2; see also §§97, 105, 110:4, 114, 126, 128, 130:2, 154:6). Swedenborg apparently derives this usage from the Gospel of John. Although generally in the Bible the word “glorify” means to praise or extol (the first meaning just given) and Swedenborg occasionally uses the word in this sense (see §§16:1, 117), the Gospel of John often uses “glorify” in the second sense just given. For example, to say that the Holy Spirit had not yet come into existence because Jesus was not glorified yet (John 7:39) clearly does not mean that Jesus was not praised yet; it means that he was not yet completely transformed, or rendered fully divine. [JSR]

¹² (in §2:2). Swedenborg is here contrasting his theology with that of contemporary Christianity. The concept of essence first became a topic of philosophical debate in the time of the ancient Greeks. It later became central to many Christian debates about the nature of God. Although the Greek and Latin terms associated with this concept, oujsiva (ousía) and essentia, respectively, had many subtly different meanings within various traditions, Swedenborg seems to use the term essence rather broadly to mean “the inherent principle by which a thing is what it is.” God’s essence, then, is divinity—it is that which makes God God. Further on in the text, Swedenborg identifies God’s essence more specifically as divine love and wisdom (§37). The term person (Latin persona), on the other hand, originally meant a mask used by an actor, and then came to mean a character or role performed. Early Christian philosophers adopted the term to differentiate the three parts of the divine Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Elsewhere Swedenborg quotes three Trinitarian scholars in the spiritual world as defining “person” as follows: “The term person means that which is not a role of, or a quality in, someone else, but an entity subsisting on its own” (§17:3). Christians of Swedenborg’s time would generally have agreed with him that God is one in essence, but would have disagreed that God is one in person. See also note 82. [JSR]

¹³ (in §2:2). The phrase “the divine design” (the Latin here is ordo, literally, “order,” which is expressed more fully elsewhere in the original as divinus ordo, literally, “divine order”) refers to a divinely ordained arrangement of things in relation to each other both in physical space (or spiritual state) and in physical time (or spiritual sequence). For a definition of the term, see §52 in the general context of §§49–70, 74. For a brief description of the divine design of the universe, see §75. [JSR]

¹⁴ (in §2:3). The Latin word here translated “partnership” is conjunctio. As later passages show (see especially §§99, 371), Swedenborg uses the word to denote the relationship that develops when two people or things come together, without either element losing its identity. Swedenborg uses the term of our relationship with the Lord, but also of the relationship between inanimate objects or qualities of the mind; in the latter cases, when “partnership” seemed an inappropriate term, it is rendered “connection” or “union” in this translation. [JSR]

¹⁵ (in §2:3). From ancient times, Christian theologians have used citation or quotation of individual passages from Scripture as a way of authenticating and substantiating their arguments. Though this use of the Bible’s text as a goldmine for “proof-texts” was criticized by sixteenth-century humanist scholars (and, in Swedenborg’s time, by an emergent new generation of interpreters of Scripture) as ignoring the context of a biblical reference, “proof-texting” remained a common practice among Protestant theologians, and testifies to the centrality of biblical authority in theological debate. See also pages 78–79 of the introduction. [RGE]

¹⁶ (in §3:1). Swedenborg’s phrase “Jehovah God” (Latin Jehovah Deus) is derived from the Latin translation of the Bible he preferred, the 1696 edition of Sebastian Schmidt (1617–1696). The original phrase in Hebrew is ~yih{l?a hwhy (yhvh ’ĕlōhîm). In English translations of the Bible, the phrase is more commonly rendered as “the LORD God,” so capitalized (see, for example, Genesis 2:4). For more on the term “Jehovah,” see note 9 above. [JSR]

¹⁷ (in §3:1). The expressions “the Word” (Latin Verbum) here, and “God with God” later in the same sentence, are allusions to the opening sentence of the Gospel according to John (John 1:1). Swedenborg generally follows Protestant tradition in using the term the Word in at least three interrelated meanings: (1) the eternal Word of God, which existed before creation (John 1:1–3); (2) the incarnate Word, born into time and space as Jesus Christ (John 1:14); and (3) the inspired Word of Scripture as truth revealed by God (compare Muller 1985, 324). In the present passage, Swedenborg is using the term in the first and second meanings just given. Usually, however, he simply means the Bible, or more specifically those books within the Bible that he found to have a spiritual meaning throughout, namely, the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), some other historical books (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings), the Book of Psalms, the major and minor prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi), the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), and the Book of Revelation. Swedenborg’s biblical canon, then, subtracted a number of books from the Protestant canon, much as the Protestant canon had done to the Roman Catholic canon. For further discussion, see Swedenborg’s Secrets of Heaven 10325, and his 1758 works New Jerusalem 266 and White Horse 16. For his explanation that he did not generally include the works of the apostles or Paul in “the Word” because their style is doctrinal rather than wholly correspondential, see his letter to Gabriel Beyer (April 15, 1766), cited in Acton 1948–1955, 612–613. [JSR]

¹⁸ (in §3:2). Although Swedenborg here follows the general Christian view of his times in referring to “the Devil” as if there were a single evil force opposite God, in fuller discussions elsewhere he asserts that there is no such thing: instead he uses “the Devil” as a collective term for hell (see Secrets of Heaven 251:2; Heaven and Hell 311, 544); nor is there one supreme “Satan,” or a “Lucifer,” that is, an angel who was cast down and became the Devil (a concept based on Isaiah 14:12; see Divine Providence 27:1; Last Judgment 14). Swedenborg does, however, speak of two classes of people in hell, one called “satans,” and the other called “devils,” or “demons.” The distinction is outlined in Divine Love and Wisdom 273 and Divine Providence 310:3, and mentioned in §281:12 of the present work and in Heaven and Hell 311:2. In general, “satans” are associated with false thoughts, love for the world, and justification of obsessions with evil, whereas “devils” are associated with demonic loves, love for oneself, and acting out obsessions with evil. Swedenborg consistently describes “devils” or “demons” as more profoundly wicked than “satans.” [JSR]

¹⁹ (in §3:2). Much like “goodness” and “truth” (see note 7 above), “goodwill” (Latin charitas) and “faith” (Latin fides) are treated by Swedenborg as a pair. In §365:1 goodwill and faith are in fact defined together in terms of goodness and truth: “‘Faith’ means all the truth from the Lord that we perceive, think, and speak. ‘Goodwill’ means all the goodness from the Lord which moves us and which we then intend and do.” A whole chapter of the present work is devoted to faith (chapter 6) and another to goodwill (chapter 7). Although often in Swedenborg’s other works the term goodwill (sometimes elsewhere in this edition rendered thoughtfulness or charity) denotes or at least implies good actions toward others, in the present work Swedenborg distinguishes between goodwill and good works; see §374. For Swedenborg’s report of a debate in the spiritual world on how to define goodwill, see §459. See also note 554 below. [JSR]

²⁰ (in §3:2). In the original Latin edition, this section and the one before it (§§2–3) are set in significantly larger type than the text that comes before and after, either because Swedenborg wished to mark these sections for special attention or because of some typographical reorganization forced by changes made to the text late in the printing. The only other passage in large type in the entire work is §§344–345. [JSR]

Notes to Chapter 1, §§4–80

²¹ (in §4:1). Swedenborg also mentions this sending out of the twelve apostles or disciples in §108, and in §791, the last section of the main text of the work. In §791 he dates the event to June 19, 1770. Therefore the present passage and §108, which both describe this as happening “several months ago,” were presumably added after the main text was finished, during a revision later in 1770. Publication of the work was begun in December 1770 and completed just before June 18, 1771 (see Acton 1948–1955, 738–740; see also the preface to the present volume, pages 21, 28–29). The term “spiritual world” may require some explanation. In Swedenborg’s theological cosmology there are two worlds or universes, one physical and one spiritual, which are related to each other through correspondences (see the overview in §75; on correspondences, see note 35 below). Swedenborg uses “spiritual world” as an umbrella term that includes heaven, hell, and the intermediate “world of spirits” to which people first go after they die, before going to either heaven or hell (Divine Love and Wisdom 140). All people who have lived and died in the physical world now live in the spiritual world (Heaven and Hell 311–317). [JSR]

²² (in §4:1). For a discussion of eighteenth-century Christian views of the Trinity and how they contrast with Swedenborg’s views, see the introduction, pages 77, 80–81, 86–90. For more on Swedenborg’s perspective on the Trinity, see §§163–188. [JSR]

²³ (in §4:2). The Latin word here translated “materialist philosophy” is naturalismus, for which the English cognate would be “naturalism.” The term was used in Swedenborg’s day to denote the beliefs of theologians and philosophers who put particular value on knowledge derived from observation and rational analysis (as opposed to divine revelation). See note 491. [RGE]

²⁴ (in §4:3). Swedenborg uses the term “soul” (Latin anima) in a variety of ways that can be grouped into two basic meanings, one of which occurs much more than the other. The less frequent usage denotes an area within human beings that is above and out of the reach of the conscious mind—an incorruptible area where the divine life first flows into human beings (see, for example, §498 of the present work; see also his 1769 work Soul-Body Interaction 8; Marriage Love 46, 101, 158, 179, 260; compare what is said about our “inner core” in Secrets of Heaven 1999:3–4). More commonly the soul includes or is even equivalent to the mind or “spirit,” that is, the seat of human will and intellect, or emotions and thoughts (which in Swedenborg’s theology are spiritual, not material; see note 409). In the present passage, as elsewhere when the mind is not specifically mentioned as a separate entity from the soul, the second meaning seems to be intended. (On the terms “plant soul,” “animal soul,” and “rational soul,” see note 175 below.) [JSR]

²⁵ (in §4:3). Though the attribution to St. Athanasius (around 295–373) had been effectively challenged by Protestant scholars by Swedenborg’s time, this fourth- or fifth-century creed (often called the Quicunque Vult from its opening words, “Whoever wants [to be saved]”) was one of the three ancient creeds considered authoritative by Lutherans. Taking their lead from Protestant reformers Martin Luther (1483–1546) and Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560), Lutheran theologians put greater emphasis on the Athanasian Creed than did either Calvinist or Anglican theologians, and continued the pre-Reformation practice of its use in worship. See also the introduction, pages 86–87. For the full text of the creed in English, see Kolb and Wengert 2000, 24–25. [RGE]

²⁶ (in §4:3). On the term “rational soul,” see note 175. [JSR]

²⁷ (in §5). Over the course of writing and publishing his theological works, Swedenborg came more and more to use the geometrical style of argumentation (also called axiomatic presentation), in which pithy statements are first presented without support, and then taken up one by one and discussed, illustrated, and corroborated. This style of argumentation is named for geometry—even though its content may not be in the least mathematical—because the best known work of ancient Greek geometry, Elements of Geometry by Euclid (flourished around 300 B.C.E.), was written in this axiomatic style. [JSR]

²⁸ (in §5). A reference to two contradictory principles can be seen in points 3 and 4 in this list of propositions. One is the principle of ethical relativism, the belief that there is no objective means of determining that a given moral or religious principle is valid for all peoples and societies. Though ethical relativism is discussed at least as early as Plato (427–347 B.C.E.; see Laws 10:889–890 [= Plato 1952, 760]; compare Aristotle Metaphysics 1061b–1063b [= Aristotle 1952d, 590–592]), as a challenge to the traditions of western Europe it was particularly strong in the century before True Christianity was originally published. Whereas Europeans had formerly believed that the Christian religion was supreme and was a unique source of morality, they were steadily tested in this assumption by a stream of information brought back by global explorers and traders, especially reports about China’s ancient, literate, and orderly society (see Anderson 2000, 307–309; Lovejoy 1960a, 99–110; Mungello 2005). In point 3, Swedenborg rejects the principle of ethical relativism by maintaining the universal validity of monotheism. The second principle to which Swedenborg refers here is uniformitarianism, the Enlightenment principle that all human reason operates in identical fashion the world over and will produce the same choices of laws and customs unless misled. In his discussion of point 4 (§11), Swedenborg likewise maintains that a single early revelation would have produced an identical religion throughout the world if it had not been perverted as it was diffused. For more on uniformitarianism, see Lovejoy 1960a, 79–82. Perhaps the most mordant attack on Christian religion on this basis was Essai sur les moeurs (Essay on Customs; 1756), a survey of the variation of beliefs throughout world history by the philosophe Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet; 1694–1778). A rich, classic study of eighteenth-century intellectual and artistic contacts between China and Europe in particular is Reichwein 1925, especially 75–96; see also the more recent discussion of Europe’s encounter with the wider world in Marshall and Williams 1982, especially 67–184, on Asia. [JSR, SS]

²⁹ (in §6:1). The Latin word here translated “earthly” is naturalis, literally, “natural.” Swedenborg uses this word very broadly both of material things (including all that is human-made) and of the “lower” or “outer” of three levels of the mind or spirit, and therefore also of heaven (see, for example, §420). He frequently speaks of this three-tiered hierarchy of heavenly (sometimes translated “celestial”), spiritual, and earthly levels; less frequently does he apply these terms to divine qualities, as he does here. [JSR]

³⁰ (in §6:1). The Latin term here translated “underlying reality” is Esse, the infinitive of the verb “to be” used as a noun. It is a philosophical term for basic existence or “is-ness” as an attribute. See also notes 84 and 86 below. [JSR]

³¹ (in §6:2). The phrase “the fullness of God” here might be an allusion to Ephesians 3:19, the sole use of the phrase in Scripture. The connection between the two passages is obscure, however. [JSR]

³² (in §8:1). “Inflow” (Latin influxus, traditionally translated “influx”) is a term derived from philosophy that denotes a one-way influence of one level or entity on another. In Swedenborg’s time and before, a vigorous debate had been going on about how the soul or nonmaterial aspect of a human being and the body or material aspect affect each other. In this debate, Swedenborg took a firm stand in favor of “spiritual inflow,” the position that what is spiritual acts upon and affects what is physical, but what is physical does not act upon or affect what is spiritual (see his 1769 work Soul-Body Interaction; see also Divine Providence 314:1; Secrets of Heaven 6322:2). The reverse position was known as physical inflow. In his theological works, Swedenborg uses the term inflow of several one-way influences: the influence of a “higher” or spiritual part of a human being on a “lower” or earthly part; the influence of the spiritual world on the physical world (see for example Divine Love and Wisdom 340); the influence of the will on the intellect (see §§50, 395:3 in the present work, and Divine Providence 233:7; on the “will” and the “intellect,” see note 39 below); and here, divine influence on human beings. [JSR]

³³ (in §8:1). See §214:1 and note 455 below, which show how and why the terms “inmost” and “highest” are interchangeable in Swedenborg’s theology. [JSR]

³⁴ (in §8:2). For more on the rhythmic speech of spirits and angels, see Swedenborg’s unpublished diary of 1745–1765, Spiritual Experiences (= Swedenborg 1998–2002) §3423; see also Secrets of Heaven 1648, in which this type of speech is compared to the Psalms. [JSR]

³⁵ (in §8:3). The brief phrase “as that inflow comes down it takes forms that do not correspond” contains several terms that carry special meanings in Swedenborg’s theological works. The term “inflow” is addressed in note 32 just above. The concept of correspondence is briefly defined in Divine Love and Wisdom 71 as “the mutual relationship between spiritual and earthly things.” In its full formulation, it holds that there are two separate universes, one spiritual and one material, that are related to each other through similarity but not through any shared matter or direct continuity. The material world is caused by God through the spiritual world and therefore reflects that world; physical phenomena and events offer images of—that is, are “responsive to” or “correspond to”—spiritual phenomena and events. By the term “form,” Swedenborg seems to mean simply the shape or condition of something, here something earthly or physical, although he at times also uses the term for the shape or condition of something spiritual (see also note 85 below). Forms, whether in nature or in earthly minds, that do not correspond are said to be unresponsive and unreceptive to a particular inflow from the spiritual world. [JSR, SS]

³⁶ (in §8:3). The phrase “the three kingdoms of nature” refers to the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom, and the mineral kingdom. [JSR]

³⁷ (in §8:3). Swedenborg holds that while humans have much in common with animals, the defining characteristics of humans are the faculties of will (or volition) and intellect (or discernment), which animals lack. On will and intellect, see note 39. For more on the distinction between humans and animals, see note 67. [JSR]

³⁸ (in §9:1). In Swedenborg’s hierarchical view of a human being (see note 6 above), the lowest level is “bodily,” or physical and self-centered; it is preoccupied with one’s own person and standing in society. The level one step above that is “worldly,” or preoccupied with wealth. Each of these levels has its own driving motivation and values, or “love,” and its own perspective on life. Later in the work (§395), Swedenborg clarifies that when people choose to give heavenly values and perspectives precedence over bodily and worldly ones, the heavenly self, the worldly self, and the bodily self in each individual work in harmony for that person’s betterment; only if people willfully disregard heavenly values and perspectives will the lower loves and perspectives become dominant and damaging. Swedenborg does not, then, share the view of some Christian theologies that the body and the world, or our enjoyment of them, are intrinsically evil; when he speaks pejoratively of worldly and bodily loves or perspectives, the wider context of his works shows that he means the state those loves and perspectives take on when they have left their post, so to speak, and have mutinied against what is higher. [JSR]

³⁹ (in §9:1). The term here translated “intellect” (Latin intellectus, traditionally translated “understanding,” and elsewhere in this edition, “discernment”) refers to one of two faculties of the human mind; the other is the “will” (Latin voluntas, elsewhere in this edition rendered “volition”). These faculties are possessed by all people; they are what make humans human. Common parlance might refer to them as our “mind” and our “heart”; more technical language might identify them as “cognitive” and “affective” functions. Later in the text Swedenborg gives them the following briefest of definitions: “the will is a vessel and a dwelling place for love, and the intellect is a vessel and a dwelling place for wisdom” (§37:2). He presents a partnership between the will and the intellect in which the will is dominant, as it is the true self or core of a person, while the intellect is an important and at times independent but often unheeded advisor to the will (see for example Divine Providence 209). To put this in terms of inflow, mentioned in note 32 above, there is an inflow from the will to the intellect, but not from the intellect to the will. For an overview of the relationship between the will and the intellect, see §397; for a detailed and extensive account of their interaction as analogous to that of the heart and the lungs, see Divine Love and Wisdom 394–431. [JSR]

⁴⁰ (in §9:1). The “Christian confessional creed” referred to here and quoted just below in the text is the Athanasian Creed (see Kolb and Wengert 2000, 24.3–6, 15–16, 18–19). On the Athanasian Creed, see note 25 above. [JSR]

⁴¹ (in §9:2). Swedenborg frequently refers to “the Golden Age,” a concept of great importance in Western thought from Greco-Roman antiquity to his day. For references to the Golden Age in antiquity, see note 375 below; for references in Swedenborg’s day, see Helander 2004, 430–433. The Golden Age was viewed as a time of peace and plenty in which agriculture was unnecessary because nature readily provided food and in which there was no need for governments or armies because people lived in harmony. Swedenborg identifies the Golden Age with what he calls the “earliest” or “most ancient church,” the first of the “five churches” (on the five churches, see note 3 above). The second of the five churches was the “early” or “ancient church,” alluded to in the next sentence in the text. [JSR]

⁴² (in §9:2). In §279:4 of the present work and in Secrets of Heaven 66, Swedenborg asserts that the first chapters of Genesis (the first eleven chapters according to Secrets of Heaven 2897; the first seven according to his 1763 work Sacred Scripture 103:3) were copied from an earlier, no longer extant revelation, which he calls the early or ancient Word (for a brief history of Swedenborg’s statements about the ancient Word, see note 503 below). In §19:1 in this volume, and also in Secrets of Heaven 411 and 1343:1, Swedenborg cites these early chapters of Genesis as evidence that the name Jehovah was in use before the time of Abraham. [JSR]

⁴³ (in §9:2). On “worldly loves” and “bodily loves,” see note 38 above. [JSR]

⁴⁴ (in §9:3). By “preclassical,” Swedenborg means before the fifth century B.C.E. Modern philologists no longer support the long-standing notion of a linguistic connection between the names “Jove” and “Jehovah”; the word “perhaps” in this sentence of the text suggests Swedenborg may have been aware of such doubts in his own times. [JSR]

⁴⁵ (in §9:3). Plato and Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) did not explicitly espouse this belief. It is, however, highly compatible with ancient Greek religious thought. The Greeks saw God as a predicative concept. That is, rather than maintain that God is wisdom, they would have asserted that wisdom is God. Virtually any quality or attribute within human conception could thus be assigned to divinity. To cite a specific instance: Aristotle writes, “We say . . . that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God” (Metaphysics 1072b [= Aristotle 1952d, 603]). In other words, the attribution of life, duration, and eternity to God is possible because life, duration, and eternity are God—or again, because God can be predicated of them. (See Wilamowitz-Moellendorf 1920, 1:348, and Grube 1935, 150.) This predicative view of divinity allowed the Greeks easily to assign an attribute to one God rather than several; a Greek could comfortably speak of Athena as the god of wisdom or speak generally of wisdom being “the gods.” Plato’s view of God in particular is complex and requires some nuanced conjecture to reconstruct; see Grube 1935, 150–178, who denies that Plato is “ever fully monotheistic” (178). It can be said, all the same, that in general Plato simply does not concern himself with distinguishing between a single deity and plural deities. Swedenborg’s assertion that the multiple deities of Greek religion are attributes of the One God can probably be traced back to research he recorded in the manuscript Quotations on Various Philosophical and Theological Topics (= Swedenborg 1976d). There Swedenborg took the following notes: “Plato affirms that heaven itself is his God or the God of gods,” and “All things are full of the gods,” referring to the spurious Platonic dialogue Epinomis 977–978 and 991, respectively (see Swedenborg 1976d, 245–246). The Epinomis dialogue approaches the notion that all the gods are subsumed in one, but avoids stating as much. Following this passage in Swedenborg’s manuscript are quotations from various philosophers, including Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716), Nicolas de Malebranche (1638–1715), René Descartes (1596–1650), and Benedict de Spinoza (1632–1677). Several of these other quotations focus on the idea that God subsumes the rest of creation; for example, “God has attributes wherein . . . are contained all created things” (Spinoza, as quoted in Swedenborg 1976d, 344). Some of these philosophers cite pre-Christian thinkers. Compare also Augustine City of God 4:11. [SS]

⁴⁶ (in §11:1). Here Swedenborg rejects one of the primary tenets of Deism, a philosophical outlook that during his lifetime could be defined roughly as a belief in God based on inborn knowledge, reason, and experience, without acceptance of revelation or traditional religion. [JSR]

⁴⁷ (in §11:1). On the term “the Word,” see note 17 above. Just as a garland is a ring or circlet of different things woven together, so the Word (roughly speaking, the Bible) is a garland (Latin corona) of many books. The Latin word corona also means a crown, so although context suggests that the union of diverse elements is the chief metaphor here, the word may also be intended to convey the superiority of the Word over other revelations. The phrase “all the fullness of divinity dwells physically in him” is an allusion to Colossians 2:9. [JSR]

⁴⁸ (in §11:1). This mention of a Christian axiom about the opposition between the earthly and the spiritual self may be an allusion to Galatians 5:17 (compare §327). [JSR]

⁴⁹ (in §11:2). Though this reference to contemporary non-Christian theology remains somewhat obscure, it is likely that in referring here to the acknowledgment of “nature as God,” Swedenborg is attacking pantheism, the belief that God and the material world are identical, inherent in which is the denial that God transcends the material world and abides beyond space and time. By those who identify God with the “innermost aspects of nature,” he may perhaps mean that subset of pantheists who believed in an immanent divine principle in nature; by those who identify God with the “outermost aspects of nature,” he may perhaps mean materialists who saw no inner spiritual operation in nature and reduced God to mere physical reality. The precise identification of the particular philosophers to whom Swedenborg alludes is probably irrecoverable. As a prime candidate, however, the Dutch philosopher Benedict de Spinoza is worth mentioning (though he was not always seen as a pantheist, but as an atheist). Spinoza stated, for example, that “Besides God, no substance can be nor can be conceived. . . . Hence it follows with the greatest clearness that God is one, that is to say . . . , in nature there is but one substance, and it is absolutely infinite” (Spinoza [1677] 1952, 359–360 = part 1, proposition 14). The Irish theological and political writer John Toland (1670–1722), who coined the English term pantheist in 1705, also promoted some pantheistic beliefs. For a brief discussion of the subject with further bibliography, see Kors 2003, 3:236–241 (under “Pantheism”). [SS]

⁵⁰ (in §11:2). By the term “Entity of All” (Latin Ens universi), Swedenborg seems to mean “the universe as an objectified entity,” or “the universe qua universe as God.” The thinkers he refers to would thus be a subset of those who identified God with the natural world (see note 49 above); these particular “naturalists” attempted to disguise their beliefs or render them less objectionable by creating an imaginary “Entity of All” to worship in place of God. They did not believe in a transcendent deity—one that transcends, or exists beyond, space and time; they believed that every physical thing around us is God and is all there is of God. Swedenborg has more to say about them in Secrets of Heaven 4950: “They were questioned as to whether they believed in an ‘Entity of All,’ a Supreme Divine Thing, that had created everything; but from the thoughts they shared with me I could tell that what they believed in was a kind of inanimate thing devoid of life. From this I could see that it was not a creator of the universe they acknowledged, but rather nature. They even said they could not conceive of a living deity.” (Translated by SS.) Swedenborg’s point is that these people are worshiping merely inanimate physical reality, not the living, creative divinity that flows into that dead physical reality and informs it with life. The term “entity of the mind alone,” or, in the Latin, ens rationis, was commonly used in Scholastic philosophy to denote a thing existing in the mind alone, as opposed to a res extra mentem (“a thing [existing] outside the mind”) or (alternatively) an ens reale (“real entity”). Swedenborg is punning on the Scholastic term to make fun of the similar-sounding “Entity of All.” [SS]

⁵¹ (in §12:1). Although this statement could be taken out of context to mean that reason is capable of seeing God by itself without the help of revelation, a different interpretation is suggested if the text in §11, which asserts that without revelation there would be no knowledge of God, is read with the text in §§273–276, which argues that all knowledge of God originated in revelation. Together they imply that once revelation has informed reason of the existence of God, whether directly from the page to the eye or very indirectly by centuries of tradition, reason can see corroboration in the phenomena of nature; if revelation had never been given to anyone on earth, however, no amount of nature study would originate the concept of God. [JSR]

⁵² (in §12:1). In his last five published theological works (Revelation Unveiled [1766], Marriage Love, Soul-Body Interaction, Survey, and the present work), Swedenborg uses the term “memorable occurrence” (Latin memorabile, plural memorabilia, traditionally translated “memorable relation”) as a technical term for an extended narrative account of one of his spiritual experiences. [JSR]

⁵³ (in §12:1). Swedenborg’s theology holds that when human beings die, they experience a seamless transition from consciousness of the physical world to consciousness of the spiritual world (Heaven and Hell 445, 493). Swedenborg claims that he himself was granted the experience of dying while his body remained nonetheless alive; he wrote fairly detailed descriptions of this experience (see Secrets of Heaven 168–189, 314–319; Heaven and Hell 445–452). [JSR]

⁵⁴ (in §12:1). As often in Swedenborg’s accounts of memorable occurrences, the views expressed by the participants here seem a synthesis of various trends prevailing in Swedenborg’s time. Specifically, here a theory about the reproductive powers of nature seems to have been substituted for a theory in dynamics (the laws of force, gravitation, and so forth) as they appear in contemporary models of cosmogony. One view of God’s role in creation was that God had created the universe as a kind of elaborate machine that could run from inception without further intervention. This view is (somewhat inaccurately) called the Cartesian view, after the French philosopher René Descartes. A variation on this view held that the universe, though a mere mechanism, required a periodic readjustment, much as a clock mechanism needs winding and resetting. This view is generally called the Newtonian view, after the English natural philosopher Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727); see his Optics 3:1 (= Newton [1717] 1952, 542), where he mentions in passing the eventual necessity of a “reformation” of the motion of the solar system due to the increase of “inconsiderable irregularities.” The view described in this passage seems to be a blend of the Cartesian and Newtonian views transposed on reproduction. A third school, of which Swedenborg is an outspoken adherent, held that the universe has required the continual infusion of some kind of divine force from the time of creation onwards. [SS]

⁵⁵ (in §12:1). The material from here to the end of §12 is adapted from parallel passages in Divine Love and Wisdom 351–357 and Marriage Love 416–421, with slight but intriguing differences among the three. In Divine Love and Wisdom Swedenborg simply presents the material in question as an expository prose passage without any introduction or frame. In Marriage Love, however, he presents it as the text of Divine Love and Wisdom read aloud at the request of angels in an account of a memorable occurrence in the spiritual world. In the present instance, he inserts it as a direct quotation from a speech he made in the spiritual world, without any reference to its earlier written forms. [JSR]

⁵⁶ (in §12:3). When Swedenborg mentions here that insects have lungs, he is speaking loosely. In the next subsection he makes clear that he means they have “windpipes that function like lungs.” [JSR]

⁵⁷ (in §12:5). Swedenborg often speaks as though there were only one sun in the physical world, even though he was well aware that stars are suns (see §160:1 of this work, as well as Secrets of Heaven 9441: “It is known in the learned world that every star is like a sun in its own place”). It was surmised at least as early as the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) that stars were enormous bodies that we see from an immense distance (On the Heavens 289b–290b [= Aristotle 1952c, 381–382]). The notion of stars as the centers of individual solar systems was popularized in the seventeenth and eighteenth century by the French writer Bernard le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657–1757) in his Entretiens sur la pluralité des mondes (Conversations on the Plurality of Solar Systems, 1686; = Fontenelle [1686] 1990). For more on extrasolar systems, see note 131. [JSR, SS]

⁵⁸ (in §12:7). The many references to bees and their behavior in Swedenborg’s theological works attest to his interest in them and his sense that they reflected something heavenly (for similar mentions, see Secrets of Heaven 4776:5, 6323:2; Heaven and Hell 108; see also Swedenborg’s unpublished manuscript of 1758–1759, Revelation Explained [= Swedenborg 1994–1997] §1198:4). His information about bees came at least in part from the Biblia Naturae (The Book of Nature) of Jan Swammerdam (1637–1680), which was published posthumously in 1737–1738. The note Swedenborg wrote on the flyleaf of a copy he gave to his friend Anders Johan von Höpken (1712–1789) describes how Swedenborg saw creatures such as bees as evidencing the inflow of divinity into the material world (see Tafel 1877, 750; Swedenborg 1996, 2:607). [JSR]

⁵⁹ (in §12:8). Swedenborg here dates his spiritual awakening (that is, his transition to consciousness of both the physical and the spiritual world) to some time around 1743. Neither the date of writing nor the date of his awakening can be established with certainty because this passage and §157 give the length of time as twenty-six years, whereas §§281 and 851 give twenty-seven years. In general, Swedenborg’s spiritual awakening appears to have been a gradual process between 1743 and 1745. Swedenborg himself always assigns a single date to it, either directly or by giving a span of intervening time as he does here, but that date generally recedes the older he gets; that is, in the late 1740s, he places it in 1745; in the 1750s through 1766, he places it in 1744; and after 1766 he places it in 1743; see Tafel’s recapitulation (Tafel 1877, 1118–1127). This receding date may have been the effect of simple forgetfulness, or it may have been the result of an evolving understanding of his past. [JSR]

⁶⁰ (in §13:1). Alpha and omega are the first and the last letters of the Greek alphabet. For an explanation of their meaning and significance, see §19:2. [JSR]

⁶¹ (in §13:3). These two sentences are repeated almost word for word from §12:9. It is not clear whether this repetition was intended by Swedenborg as a kind of refrain or was a slip either in his manuscript copying or on the typesetter’s part, as the result perhaps of picking up the previous page of the handwritten original. [JSR]

⁶² (in §13:3). The Latin terms translated here, and generally throughout this volume, as “purposes,” “means,” and “results” are fines, causae, and effectus. These terms have traditionally been translated as “ends,” “causes,” and “effects,” respectively. [JSR]

⁶³ (in §14:1). There are important resonances in Swedenborg’s use of the expression “citizens of both worlds,” one classically Augustinian and the other specifically Lutheran: Augustine (354–430), in his City of God, describes the elect and reprobate as forming two eternal cities, which, though they mix and may be indistinguishable from each other on earth during the temporal life of humans, have different origins and destinations in the realm of the eternal; Luther developed the idea further in what has come to be called his “two kingdoms” doctrine. In Luther’s understanding, every human is subject to God’s authority in two ways: primarily, by the direct claim of God as sovereign; and secondarily, as an inhabitant of a world governed by God through temporal rulers. [RGE]

⁶⁴ (in §14:2). On the will, see note 39 above. [JSR]

⁶⁵ (in §14:2). For this use of the plural “satans,” which is common in Swedenborg, see note 18 above. [JSR]

⁶⁶ (in §14:3). By the “spirit” into which people come when they are at home alone, Swedenborg means their inner self or true nature, as opposed to their outer self or the outward persona they present to the world (see §156). It is this mind or spirit that survives death. For how the “spirit” relates to the “soul” in Swedenborg’s theology, see note 24 above. For a more otherworldly application of the phrase “coming into one’s spirit,” see note 203. [JSR]

⁶⁷ (in §14:3). Descartes had argued in the 1600s that animals were essentially machines (Descartes [1637] 1952a, 59), and Enlightenment philosophers later extended this assertion to humans as well, most noticeably Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) in his work Leviathan (1651): “For seeing that life is but a motion of Limbs, the beginning whereof is in some principal part within, why may we not say that all automata (engines that move themselves by springs and wheels as doth a watch) have an artificial life? For what is the heart, but a spring; and the nerves, but so many strings; and the joints, but so many wheels, giving motion to the whole body, such as was intended by the Artificer?” (Hobbes [1651] 1952, 47). This hint was taken up in full by Julien Offray de La Mettrie (1709–1751) in his book L’Homme machine (Humanity as Machine [= La Mettrie [1748] 1994]) and Paul-Henri Dietrich, Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789) in his Système de la nature (System of Nature, 1770). Swedenborg, like other Christian thinkers, asserted that though humans have an outer nature that is like that of an animal, they possess eternal souls that live on after death, whereas animals do not (Heaven and Hell 39). For extensive discussion, with bibliography, of the machine—both actual automata and as symbol of humankind during the Enlightenment—see Schaffer 1999, 126–165. For a fuller discussion and refutation of the argument that humans cannot be immortal if animals are not, see Secrets of Heaven 4760:2, 5114:5. [JSR, SS]

⁶⁸ (in §14:4). The expression “gathered to their people” is an allusion to an idiom of the Old Testament meaning to die (see Genesis 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29, 33; Numbers 20:24; 27:13; 31:2; Deuteronomy 32:50). In the Old Testament, however, the “people” to whom one is gathered are one’s earthly relatives, whereas here they are one’s spiritual associates. [JSR]

⁶⁹ (in §15:1). The expression “communion of saints” is derived from the creeds; it is defined later in the text as the Lord’s “church that is scattered throughout the entire world” (§307:1; see also §416). It has most frequently been understood to mean the community of the saved, whether on earth, in heaven, or in the ages to come. It is based in the communion between all believers in Christ, seen as bringing Christians into communion with each other as well. In an extension of this idea, the expression has occasionally been extrapolated to mean the unity in holiness shared by the elect, the angels, and the whole company of heaven. This could explain Swedenborg’s parallel use of the expression “communion of angels” in this passage. The individuals within each group are clearly seen as being in special relationship with other group members through God. [RGE]

⁷⁰ (in §15:1). The term “the Regenerator” has a specific meaning in Swedenborg’s theology. It refers to God as the cause of “regeneration,” or the process of spiritual rebirth, in people. On regeneration, see chapter 10 (§§571–625) in the second volume of this work. [JSR]

⁷¹ (in §15:2). By the “appendix at the end of this work,” Swedenborg meant a separate smaller title, which he planned to produce immediately after the present title, and in which he intended to discuss the spiritually bankrupt state of contemporary Christianity and its imminent replacement by a “new church” (see other mentions of the planned appendix in §§177:2, 4; 343; 627; 758; and a mention of a seemingly related possible future work in §123:2; see also the preface, page 29). At the time of Swedenborg’s death, he left behind some manuscript fragments on such topics: Sketch for “Coda to True Christianity,” Draft for “Coda to True Christianity,” Sketch for “End of the Age,” Outlines for “End of the Age,” and Draft Invitation to the New Church (items U178–U182 in Rose 2005, 503–505; see Swedenborg 1996). He did not, however, publish or even complete the promised appendix. [JSR]

⁷² (in §15:2). This characterization of the Trinity seems intentionally incongruous. The three figures come from two widely divergent traditions. The “ancient of days” is a term for God that occurs in one prominent story in the Old Testament (Daniel 7:9, 13, 22); the “high priest” was a leading cleric in the Jewish ecclesiastical hierarchy of Old and New Testament times (see, for example, Leviticus 21:10; Matthew 26:3); and Aeolus was a figure in Greco-Roman mythology—he was the god of the winds. [JSR]

⁷³ (in §15:2). The Trinity actually was at times depicted in European art as a single human body with three heads, a representation that proved so repugnant that it was outlawed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1628, during the Counter-Reformation. See also note 521. [SS]