2910. And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep for her. That this signifies the Lord’s state of grief on account of the night as to truths of faith in the church, is evident from the representation of Abraham, as being the Lord (see n. 1893, 1965, 1989, 2011, 2172, 2501, 2833, 2836). That to “mourn” and to “weep” signify a state of grief is evident without explication; to “mourn” has respect to grief on account of night as to good in the church, and to “weep” as to truths. These two verses treat of the end of the church; its end is when there is no longer any charity. This state is treated of in many places in the Word, especially in the Prophets, and in John in Revelation; the Lord also describes this end by many things in the Evangelists, and calls it the “consummation of the age,” and also “night.”

[2] For with churches the case is this: In the beginning charity is fundamental with them; everyone then loves another as a brother, and is affected from good, not for his own sake, but for the sake of the neighbor, the community, the kingdom of the Lord, and above all things for the Lord’s sake. But in process of time charity begins to grow cold and to become naught. Afterwards comes hatred of one another; which, although it does not appear outwardly, because in civic society men are under laws, and are under outward bonds of restraint, still is nourished inwardly. These outward bonds of restraint come from the love of self and of the world; they are the love of honor and eminence, the love of gain and hence also of power, thus the love of reputation. Under these loves hatred against the neighbor conceals itself, which is of such a nature that men desire to have command over all, and to possess all things that are another’s; and when these desires are opposed, they treasure in their hearts contempt for the neighbor, they breathe revenge, they take delight in his ruin, and even practice cruelties so far as they dare. Into things like these does the charity of the church at its end at last decline, and then it is said of it that there is no longer any faith, for where there is no charity there is no faith, as has been shown many times.

[3] There have been a number of churches, known to us from the Word, that had such an end. The Most Ancient Church thus expired about the time of the flood; in like manner the Ancient Church which was after the flood; also a second Ancient Church, called the Hebrew Church; and at last the Jewish Church, which was by no means a church that commenced from charity, but was only the representative of a church, to the intent that by representatives communication with heaven might survive, until the Lord came into the world. Afterwards a new church was raised up by the Lord, called the Church of the Gentiles, which was internal, for interior truths had been revealed by the Lord; but this church is now at its end, because now there is not only no charity, but there is hatred instead of charity; which hatred, though it does not appear outwardly, yet is within, and breaks out whenever possible with anyone, that is, whenever outward bonds do not restrain.

[4] Besides these churches there have been very many others that are not so fully described, which in like manner decreased and destroyed themselves. There are many causes for such decrease and self-destruction; one is that parents accumulate evils, and by frequent practice, and at length by habit, they implant them in their nature, and so by inheritance transcribe them upon their offspring; for what parents acquire from actual life by frequent use is rooted in their nature and is transmitted by inheritance to posterity; and unless the posterity is reformed or regenerated, it is continued to successive generations and is all the time increasing; and thus the will becomes more prone to evils and falsities. But when a church is consummated and perishes, then the Lord always raises up a new church somewhere; but rarely, if ever, from the people of the former church; but from nations that have been in ignorance. Concerning these in what follows.

1866. From the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. That this signifies the extension of spiritual and celestial things-to “the river of Egypt” being the extension of spiritual things, and “to the river Euphrates” being the extension of celestial things-is evident from the signification of “the river of Egypt,” and from the signification of “the great river,” or “the Euphrates.” That these “rivers” signify the extension of spiritual and celestial things, may be seen from the signification of the land of Canaan, as being the Lord’s kingdom in the heavens and on the earth, in which there is nothing but the spiritual things which are of faith and the celestial things which are of mutual love; and therefore nothing but the extension of these can be meant by the boundaries of the land of Canaan. For what the land of Canaan is, what the river of Egypt is, and what the great river Euphrates is, and indeed what the boundaries of any land are, they who are in the heavens do not know at all; but they well know what the extension of spiritual and celestial things is, and also the determinations and the limitations of the states of these things. These things they have in mind while the others are being read by man; and so the letter vanishes and together with it that historical sense which has served as an objective form for the heavenly ideas.

[2] That “the river of Egypt” signifies the extension of spiritual things, is because “Egypt” signifies memory-knowledges [scientifica], which, together with a man’s rational and intellectual things, constitute spiritual things (as before said, n. 1443 and in other places; and that “Egypt” in the internal sense signifies memory-knowledges may be seen n. 1164, 1165, 1186, 1462). That “the river Euphrates” signifies the extension of celestial things, may be seen from a consideration of the lands which that river bounds and separates from the land of Canaan, and by which likewise in many passages are signified the knowledges [scientifica et cognitiones] of celestial things but here, because it is called “the river” and “the great river,” celestial things and the knowledges [cognitiones] of them are what alone are signified; for a “great river” and “greatness” are predicated of these.