444. To the above I shall add the following MEMORABLE RELATION. After I had concluded the meditations on conjugial love, and had begun those on adulterous love, on a sudden two angels presented themselves, and said, "We have perceived and understood what you have heretofore meditated upon; but the things upon which you are now meditating pass away, and we do not perceive them. Say nothing about them, for they are of no value." But I replied, "This love, on which I am now meditating, is not of no value; because it exists." But they said, "How can there be any love, which is not from creation? Is not conjugial love from creation; and does not this love exist between two who are capable of becoming one? How can there be a love which divides and separates? What youth can love any other maiden than the one who loves him in return? Must not the love of the one know and acknowledge the love of the other, so that when they meet they may unite of themselves? Who can love what is not love? Is not conjugial love alone mutual and reciprocal? If it be not reciprocal, does it not rebound and become nothing?" On hearing this, I asked the two angels from what society of heaven they were? They said, "We are from the heaven of innocence; we came infants into this heavenly world, and were educated under the Lord's auspices; and when I became a young man, and my wife, who is here with me, marriageable, we were betrothed and entered into a contract, and were joined under the first favorable impressions; and as we were unacquainted with any other love than what is truly nuptial and conjugial, therefore, when we were made acquainted with the ideas of your thought concerning a strange love directly opposed to our love, we could not at all comprehend it; and we have descended in order to ask you, why you meditate on things that cannot be understood? Tell us, therefore, how a love, which not only is not from creation, but is also contrary to creation, could possibly exist? We regard things opposite to creation as objects of no value." As they said this, I rejoiced in heart that I was permitted to converse with angels of such innocence, as to be entirely ignorant of the nature and meaning of adultery: wherefore I was free to converse with them, and I instructed them as follows: "Do you not know, that there exist both good and evil, and that good is from creation, but not evil; and still that evil viewed in itself is not nothing, although it is nothing of good? From creation there exists good, and also good in the greatest degree and in the least; and when this least becomes nothing, there rises up on the other side evil: wherefore there is no relation or progression of good to evil, but a relation and progression of good to a greater and less good, and of evil to a greater and less evil; for in all things there are opposites. And since good and evil are opposites, there is an intermediate, and in it an equilibrium, in which evil acts against good; but as it does not prevail, it stops in a conatus. Every man is educated in this equilibrium, which, because it is between good and evil, or, what is the same, between heaven and hell, is a spiritual equilibrium, which, with those who are in it, produces a state of freedom. From this equilibrium, the Lord draws all to himself; and if a man freely follows, he leads him out of evil into good, and thereby into heaven. The case is the same with love, especially with conjugial love and adultery: the latter love is evil, but the former good. Every man that hears the voice of the Lord, and freely follows, is introduced by the Lord into conjugial love and all its delights and satisfactions; but he that does not hear and follow, introduces himself into adulterous love, first into its delights, afterwards into what is undelightful, and lastly into what is unsatisfactory." When I had thus spoken, the two angels asked me, "How could evil exist, when nothing but good had existed from creation? The existence of anything implies that it must have an origin. Good could not be the origin of evil, because evil is nothing of good, being privative and destructive of good; nevertheless, since it exists and is sensibly felt, it is not nothing, but something; tell us therefore whence this something existed after nothing." To this I replied, "This arcanum cannot be explained, unless it be known that no one is good but God alone, and that there is not anything good, which in itself is good, but from God; wherefore he that looks to God, and wishes to be led by God, is in good; but he that turns himself from God, and wishes to be led by himself, is not in good; for the good which he does, is for the sake either of himself or of the world; thus it is either meritorious, or pretended, or hypocritical: from which considerations it is evident, that man himself is the origin of evil; not that that origin was implanted in him by creation; but that he, by turning from God to himself, implanted it in himself. That origin of evil was not in Adam and his wife; but when the serpent said, 'In the day that ye shall eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ye shall be as God' (Gen. iii. 5), they then made in themselves the origin of evil, because they turned themselves from God, and turned to themselves, as to God. To eat of that tree, signifies to believe that they knew good and evil, and were wise, from themselves, and not from God." But the two angels then asked, "How could man turn himself from God, and turn to himself, when yet he cannot will, think, and thence do anything but from God? Why did God permit this?" I replied, "Man was so created, that whatever he wills, thinks, and does, appears to him as in himself, and thereby from himself: without this appearance a man would not be a man; for he would be incapable of receiving, retaining, and as it were appropriating to himself anything of good and truth, or of love and wisdom: whence it follows, that without such appearance, as a living appearance, a man would not have conjunction with God, and consequently neither would he have eternal life. But if from this appearance he induces in himself a belief that he wills, thinks, and thence does good from himself, and not from the Lord, although in all appearance as from himself, he turns good into evil with himself, and thereby makes in himself the origin of evil. This was the sin of Adam. But I will explain this matter somewhat more clearly. The Lord looks at every man in the forepart of his head, and this inspection passes into the hinder part of his head. Beneath the forepart is the cerebrum, and beneath the hinder part is the cerebellum; the latter was designed for love and the goods thereof, and the former for wisdom and the truths thereof; wherefore he that looks with the face to the Lord receives from him wisdom, and by wisdom love; but he that looks backward from the Lord receives love and not wisdom; and love without wisdom, is love from man and not from the Lord; and this love, since it conjoins itself with falses, does not acknowledge God, but acknowledges itself for God, and confirms this tacitly by the faculty of understanding and growing wise implanted in it from creation as from itself; wherefore this love is the origin of evil. That this is the case, will admit of ocular demonstration. I will call hither some wicked spirit who turns himself from God, and will speak to him from behind, or into the hinder part of the head, and you will see that the things which are said are turned into their contraries." I called such a spirit and he presented himself, and I spoke to him from behind and said, "Do you know anything about hell, damnation, and torment in hell?" And presently, when he was turned to me, I asked him what he heard? He said, "I heard, 'Do you know anything concerning heaven, salvation, and happiness in heaven?'" and afterwards when the latter words were said to him from behind, he said that he heard the former. It was next said to him from behind, "Do you know that those who are in hell are insane from falses?" and when I asked him concerning these words what he heard, he said, "I heard, 'Do you know that those who are in heaven are wise from truths?'" and when the latter words were spoken to him from behind, he said that he heard, "Do you know that those who are in hell, are insane from falses?" and so in other instances: from which it evidently appears, that when the mind turns itself from the Lord, it turns to itself, and then it perceives things contrary. "This, as you know, is the reason why, in this spiritual world, no one is allowed to stand behind another, and to speak to him; for thereby there is inspired into him a love, which his own intelligence favors and obeys for the sake of its delight; but since it is from man, and not from God, it is a love of evil, or a love of the false. In addition to the above, I will relate to you another similar circumstance. On certain occasions I have heard goods and truths let down from heaven into hell; and in hell they were progressively turned into their opposites, good into evil, and truth into the false; the cause of this, the same as above, because all in hell turn themselves from the Lord." On hearing these two things the two angels thanked me, and said, "As you are now meditating and writing concerning a love opposite to our conjugial love, and the opposite to that love makes our minds sad, we will depart;" and when they said, "Peace be unto you," I besought them not to mention that love to their brethren and sisters in heaven, because it would hurt their innocence. I can positively assert that those who die infants, grow up in heaven, and when they attain the stature which is common to young men of eighteen years old in the world, and to maidens of fifteen years, they remain of that stature; and further, that both before marriage and after it, they are entirely ignorant what adultery is, and that such a thing can exist.
ON FORNICATION.
[Transcriber's Note: The out-of-order section number which follows is in the original text, as is the asterisk which does not seem to indicate a footnote.]
444.* FORNICATION means the lust of a grown up man or youth with a woman, a harlot, before marriage; but lust with a woman, not a harlot, that is, with a maiden or with another's wife, is not fornication; with a maiden it is the act of deflowering, and with another's wife it is adultery. In what manner these two differ from fornication, cannot be seen by any rational being unless he takes a clear view of the love of the sex in its degrees and diversities, and of its chaste principles on the one part, and of its unchaste principles on the other, arranging each part into genera and species, and thereby distinguishing them. Without such a view and arrangement, it is impossible there should exist in any one's idea a discrimination between the chaste principle as to more and less, and between the unchaste principle as to more and less; and without these distinctions all relation perishes, and therewith all perspicacity in matters of judgement, and the understanding is involved in such a shade, that it does not know how to distinguish fornication from adultery, and still less the milder kinds of fornication from the more grievous, and in like manner of adultery; thus it mixes evils, and of different evils makes one pottage, and of different goods one paste. In order therefore that the love of the sex may be distinctly known as to that part by which it inclines and makes advances to adulterous love altogether opposite to conjugial love, it is expedient to examine its beginning, which is fornication; and this we will do in the following series: I. Fornication is of the love of the sex. II. This love commences when a youth begins to think and act from his own understanding and his voice to be masculine. III. Fornication is of the natural man. IV. Fornication is lust, but not the lust of adultery. V. With some men the love of the sex cannot without hurt be totally checked from going forth into fornication. VI. Therefore in populous cities public stews are tolerated. VII. The lust of fornication is light, so far as it looks to conjugial love, and gives this love the preference. VIII. The lust of fornication is grievous, so far as it looks to adultery. IX. The lust of fornication is more grievous, as it verges to the desire of varieties and of defloration. X. The sphere of the lust of fornication, such as it is in the beginning, is a middle sphere between the sphere of adulterous love and the sphere of conjugial love, and makes an equilibrium. XI. Care is to be taken, lest, by inordinate and immoderate fornications, conjugial love be destroyed. XII. Inasmuch as the conjugial principle of one man with one wife is the jewel of human life and the reservoir of the Christian religion. XIII. With those who, from various reasons, cannot as yet enter into marriage, and from their passion for the sex, cannot restrain their lusts, this conjugial principle may be preserved, if the vague love of the sex be confined to one mistress. XIV. Keeping a mistress is preferable to vague amours, if only one is kept, and she be neither a maiden nor a married woman, and the love of the mistress be kept separate from conjugial love. We proceed to an explanation of each article.
445. I. FORNICATION IS OF THE LOVE OF THE SEX. We say that fornication is of the love of the sex, because it is not the love of the sex but is derived from it. The love of the sex is like a fountain, from which both conjugial and adulterous love may be derived; they may also be derived by means of fornication, and also without it: for the love of the sex is in every man (homo), and either does or does not put itself forth: if it puts itself forth before marriage with a harlot, it is called fornication; if not until with a wife, it is called marriage; if after marriage with another woman, it is called adultery: wherefore, as we have said, the love of the sex is like a fountain, from which may flow both chaste and unchaste love: but with what caution and prudence chaste conjugial love can proceed by fornication, yet from what imprudence unchaste or adulterous love can proceed thereby, we will explain in what follows. Who can draw the conclusion, that he that has committed fornication cannot be more chaste in marriage?