1919. Abram said unto Sarai. That this signifies perception, is evident from what was said above (n. 1898). The Lord’s perception was represented and is here signified by this which Abram said to Sarai; but His thought from the perception, by that which Sarai said to Abram. The thought was from the perception. They who are in perception think from nothing else; but still perception is one thing and thought another. To show that this is the case, take conscience as an illustration.

[2] Conscience is a kind of general dictate, and thus an obscure one, of the things that flow in through the heavens from the Lord. Those which flow in present themselves in the interior rational man and are there as in a cloud, which cloud is from appearances and fallacies concerning the truths and goods of faith. But thought is distinct from conscience, and yet it flows from conscience; for they who have conscience think and speak according to it, and the thought is little else than an unfolding of the things which are of conscience, and thereby the partition of them into ideas and then into words. Hence it is that they who have conscience are kept by the Lord in good thoughts respecting the neighbor, and are withheld from thinking evil; and therefore conscience can have no place except with those who love their neighbor as themselves, and think well concerning the truths of faith. From what has been advanced we may see what the difference is between conscience and thought; and from this we may know what the difference is between perception and thought.

[3] The Lord’s perception was immediately from Jehovah, and thus from the Divine good; but His thought was from intellectual truth and the affection of it, as before said (n. 1904, 1914). The Lord’s Divine perception cannot be apprehended by any idea, not even of angels, and therefore it cannot be described. The perception of the angels (spoken of n. 1354, etc., 1394, 1395) is scarcely anything in comparison with the perception which the Lord had. The Lord’s perception, being Divine, was a perception of all things in the heavens, and therefore also of all things on earth, for such is the order, connection, and influx, that he who is in the perception of the former is also in the perception of the latter.

[4] But after the Lord’s Human Essence had been united to His Divine Essence, and at the same time had become Jehovah, the Lord was then above that which is called perception, because He was above the order that is in the heavens and thence on the earth. It is Jehovah who is the source of order, and hence it may be said that Jehovah is Order itself, for He from Himself governs order; not as is supposed in the universal only, but also in the veriest singulars, for the universal comes from these. To speak of the universal, and to separate from it the singulars, would be nothing else than to speak of a whole in which there are no parts, and therefore to speak of a something in which there is nothing. So that to say that the Lord’s Providence is universal, and is not a Providence of the veriest singulars, is to say what is utterly false, and is what is called an ens rationis [that is, a figment of the imagination]. For to provide and govern in the universal, and not in the veriest singulars, is to provide and govern absolutely nothing. This is true philosophically, and yet wonderful to say, philosophers themselves, even those who soar the highest, apprehend the matter differently, and think differently.

1904. Sarai, Abram’s wife, took. That this signifies the affection of truth, which in the genuine sense is “Sarai the wife,” is evident from the signification of “Sarai,” as being truth adjoined to good, and from the signification of a “wife,” as being affection (explained above, n. 915, 1468). There are two affections distinct from each other,—affection of good, and affection of truth. When a man is being regenerated the affection of truth has the lead, for he is affected with truth for the sake of good; but when he has been regenerated the affection of good has the lead, and from good he is affected with truth. The affection of good is of the will; the affection of truth is of the understanding. Between these two affections the most ancient people instituted as it were a marriage. Good, or the love of good, they called man as a husband; truth, or the love of truth, they called man as a wife. The comparison of good and truth with marriage has its origin in the heavenly marriage.

[2] Regarded in themselves, good and truth have no life, but they derive their life from love or affection. They are only instrumentalities of life; and such as is the love that affects the good and truth, such is the life; for the whole of life is of love, or affection. Hence it is that “Sarai the wife,” in the genuine sense, signifies the affection of truth. And because in the case before us the intellectual desired the rational as an offspring, and because that which she speaks is of this desire or affection, it is therefore expressly said in this verse, “Sarai, Abram’s wife, gave to Abram, her man,” which there would have been no need of repeating if it did not involve such things in the internal sense, for in themselves these words would be superfluous.

[3] Intellectual truth is distinguished from rational truth, and this from truth in the form of memory-knowledge, as are what is internal, what is intermediate, and what is external. Intellectual truth is internal, rational truth is intermediate, truth of memory-knowledge is external. These are most distinct from each other, because one is more internal than another. With any man whatever, intellectual truth, which is internal, or in his inmost, is not the man’s, but is the Lord’s with the man. From this the Lord flows into the rational, where truth first appears as belonging to man; and through the rational into the memory-knowledge; from which it is evident that man cannot possibly think as of himself from intellectual truth, but only from rational truth and truth of memory-knowledge, because these appear as if they were his.

[4] The Lord alone, when He lived in the world, thought from intellectual truth, for this was His Divine truth in conjunction with Good, or the Divine spiritual in conjunction with the Divine celestial, and herein was the Lord distinguished from every other man. To think from what is Divine as from himself is never possible to man, nor in man, but only in Him who was conceived of Jehovah. Because He thought from intellectual truth, that is, from the love or affection of intellectual truth, from it also He desired the rational, and this is why it is here said that “Sarai, Abram’s wife” (by whom is meant the affection of intellectual truth) “took Hagar the Egyptian, and gave her to Abram her husband, for a woman to him.”

[5] The rest of the arcana that are herein cannot be unfolded and explained to the apprehension, because man is in the greatest obscurity, and in fact has no idea at all of the internal things within him, for he makes both the rational and the intellectual to consist in memory-knowledge, and is not aware that these are distinct from each other, so distinct indeed that the intellectual can exist apart from the rational, and also the rational that is derived from the intellectual, apart from the memory-knowledge. This cannot but seem a paradox to those who are in memory-knowledges, but still it is the truth. It is however impossible for anyone to be in the truth that is in the form of memory-knowledge (that is, in the affection of this and the belief in it), unless he is in rational truth, into which and through which the Lord inflows from the intellectual. These arcana do not open to man except in the other life.