Angelic Wisdom Concerning the Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom by Emanuel Swedenborg
page 60 of 279 (21%)
page 60 of 279 (21%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
|
only put aside, and so far as it is put aside the angels receive love and
wisdom, that is, the Lord, in themselves. Any one, if he will only elevate his understanding a little, can see that the Lord can dwell in angels, only in what is His, that is, in what is His very own, which is love and wisdom, and not at all in the selfhood of angels, which is evil. From this it is, that so far as evil is put away so far the Lord is in them, and so far they are angels. The very angelic of heaven is Love Divine and Wisdom Divine. This Divine is called the angelic when it is in angels. From this, again, it is evident that angels are angels from the Lord, and not from themselves; consequently, the same is true of heaven. 115. But how the Lord is in an angel and an angel in the Lord cannot be comprehended, unless the nature of their conjunction is known. Conjunction is of the Lord with the angel and of the angel with the Lord; conjunction, therefore, is reciprocal. On the part of the angel it is as follows. The angel, in like manner as man, has no other perception than that he is in love and wisdom from himself, consequently that love and wisdom are, as it were, his or his own. Unless he so perceived there would be no conjunction, thus the Lord would not be in him, nor he in the Lord. Nor can it be possible for the Lord to be in any angel or man, unless the one in whom the Lord is, with love and wisdom, has a perception and sense as if they were his. By this means the Lord is not only received, but also, when received, is retained, and likewise loved in return. And by this, also, the angel is made wise and continues wise. Who can wish to love the Lord and his neighbor, and who can wish to be wise, without a sense and perception that what he loves, learns, and imbibes is, as it were, his own? Who otherwise can retain it in himself? If this were not so, the inflowing love and wisdom would have no abiding-place, for it would flow through and not affect; thus an angel would not be an angel, nor would man be a man; he would be merely like something inanimate. From all this it |
|


