The Doctrine of Life for the New Jerusalem, Founded on the Precepts of the Decalogue. ¹

by Emanuel Swedenborg

(First published 1763)

Translator’s Table of Contents:

- Every Religion Is a Way of Life, and Its Life Is the Doing of Good, 1

- No One Can of Himself Do Good That Is Good, 9

- Insofar as a Person Refrains from Evils as Being Sins, So Far He Does Good, Not of Himself, but from the Lord, 18

1. If a person wills and does good before he refrains from evils as being sins, the good that he does is not good. 24

2. If a person thinks and speaks piously, and does not refrain from evils as being sins, his pious thoughts and words are not pious. 25

3. If a person gains much knowledge and wisdom, and does not refrain from evils as being sins, he is still not wise. 27

- Insofar as Someone Refrains from Evils as Being Sins, So Far He Loves Truths, 32

- Insofar as Someone Refrains from Evils as Being Sins, So Far He Has Faith and Is Spiritual, 42

- The Ten Commandments Tell Us What Evils Are Sins, 53

- Every Form of Murder, Adultery, Theft, or False Witness, Including Every Urge to Commit Them, Is an Evil Which Must Be Refrained from as Being a Sin, 62

- Insofar as Someone Refrains from Every Form of Murder as a Sin, So Far He Has Love for the Neighbor, 67

- Insofar as Someone Refrains from Every Form of Adultery as Being a Sin, So Far He Loves Chastity, 74

- Insofar as Someone Refrains from Every Form of Stealing as Being a Sin, So Far He Loves Honesty, 80

- Insofar as Someone Refrains from Every Form of False Witness as Being a Sin, So Far He Loves Truth, 87

- No One Can Refrain from Evils as Being Sins So as to Turn Away from Them Inwardly Except by Battles Against Them, 92

- A Person Must Refrain from Evils as Being Sins and Fight Against Them as Though of Himself, 101

- If Someone Refrains from Evils for Any Other Reason Than That They Are Sins, He Does Not Really Refrain from Them, but Only Keeps Them from Being Seen by the World, 108

Translator's Notes or Footnotes:

76. No one can know what the chasteness of marriage is like unless he refrains from the lasciviousness of adultery as being a sin. A person may know the state he is in, but he cannot know a state in which he is not. If, from a description of it or from thinking about it, he knows something of a state in which he is not, still he knows only a shadow of it, and some uncertainty remains. Consequently he does not see it in clear light and free of uncertainty until he is in it. It is then that he knows it, while before it is to know and not know.

The truth is that the lasciviousness of adultery and the chasteness of marriage stand in relation to each other precisely in the same way as hell and heaven. Moreover, the lasciviousness of adultery creates a hell in a person, while the chasteness of marriage creates a heaven in him.

Still, the chasteness of marriage is experienced only by someone who refrains from the lasciviousness of adultery as being a sin. See no. 111 below.