9372. And He said unto Moses. That this signifies that which concerns the Word in general, is evident from the representation of Moses, as being the Word (of which below); and from the signification of “He said,” as involving those things which follow in this chapter, thus those which concern the Word (see n. 9370). (That Moses represents the Word, can be seen from what has been often shown before about Moses, as from the preface to Genesis 18; and n. 4859, 5922, 6723, 6752, 6771, 6827, 7010, 7014, 7089, 7382, 8601, 8760, 8787, 8805.) Here Moses represents the Word in general, because it is said of him in what follows, that he alone should come near unto Jehovah (verse 2); and also that, being called unto out of the midst of the cloud, he entered into it, and went up the mount (verses 16-18).

[2] In the Word there are many who represent the Lord in respect to truth Divine, or in respect to the Word; but chief among them are Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and John the Baptist. That Moses does so, can be seen in the explications just cited above; that so do Elijah and Elisha, can be seen in the preface to Genesis 18; and n. 2762, 5247; and that John the Baptist does so is evident from the fact that he was “Elias who was to come.” He who does not know that John the Baptist represented the Lord as to the Word, cannot know what all those things infold and signify which are said about him in the New Testament; and therefore in order that this secret may stand open, and that at the same time it may appear that Elias, and also Moses, who were seen when the Lord was transfigured, signified the Word, some things may here be quoted which are spoken about John the Baptist; as in Matthew:

After the messengers of John had departed, Jesus began to speak concerning John, saying, What went ye out into the wilderness to see? a reed shaken by the wind? But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft things are in kings’ houses. But what went ye out to see? a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, even more than a prophet. This is he of whom it is written, Behold I send Mine angel before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee. Verily I say unto you, Among those who are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist; nevertheless he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he. All the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye are willing to believe, he is Elias who was to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 11:7-15; and also Luke 7:24-28).

No one can know how these things are to be understood, unless he knows that this John represented the Lord as to the Word, and unless he also knows from the internal sense what is signified by “the wilderness” in which he was, also what by “a reed shaken by the wind,” and likewise by “soft raiment in kings’ houses;” and further what is signified by his being “more than a prophet,” and by “none among those who are born of women being greater than he, and nevertheless he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he,” and lastly by his being “Elias.” For without a deeper sense, all these words are uttered merely from some comparison, and not from anything of weight.

[3] But it is very different when by John is understood the Lord as to the Word, or the Word representatively. Then by “the wilderness of Judea in which John was” is signified the state in which the Word was at the time when the Lord came into the world, namely, that it was “in the wilderness,” that is, it was in obscurity so great that the Lord was not at all acknowledged, neither was anything known about His heavenly kingdom; when yet all the prophets prophesied about Him, and about His kingdom, that it was to endure forever. (That “a wilderness” denotes such obscurity, see n. 2708, 4736, 7313.) For this reason the Word is compared to “a reed shaken by the wind” when it is explained at pleasure; for in the internal sense “a reed” denotes truth in the ultimate, such as is the Word in the letter.

[4] That the Word in the ultimate, or in the letter, is crude and obscure in the sight of men; but that in the internal sense it is soft and shining, is signified by their “not seeing a man clothed in soft raiment, for behold those who wear soft things are in kings’ houses.” That such things are signified by these words, is plain from the signification of “raiment,” or “garments,” as being truths (n. 2132, 2576, 4545, 4763, 5248, 6914, 6918, 9093); and for this reason the angels appear clothed in garments soft and shining according to the truths from good with them (n. 5248, 5319, 5954, 9212, 9216). The same is evident from the signification of “kings’ houses,” as being the abodes of the angels, and in the universal sense, the heavens; for “houses” are so called from good (n. 2233, 2234, 3128, 3652, 3720, 4622, 4982, 7836, 7891, 7996, 7997); and “kings,” from truth (n. 1672, 2015, 2069, 3009, 4575, 4581, 4966, 5044, 6148). Therefore by virtue of their reception of truth from the Lord, the angels are called “sons of the kingdom,” “sons of the king,” and also “kings.”

[5] That the Word is more than any doctrine in the world, and more than any truth in the world, is signified by “what went ye out to see? a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet;” and by, “there hath not arisen among those who are born of women a greater than John the Baptist;” for in the internal sense “a prophet” denotes doctrine (n. 2534, 7269); and “those who are born,” or are the sons, “of women” denote truths (n. 489, 491, 533, 1147, 2623, 2803, 2813, 3704, 4257).

[6] That in the internal sense, or such as it is in heaven, the Word is in a degree above the Word in the external sense, or such as it is in the world, and such as John the Baptist taught, is signified by, “he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he;” for as perceived in heaven the Word is of wisdom so great that it transcends all human apprehension. That the prophecies about the Lord and His coming, and that the representatives of the Lord and of His kingdom, ceased when the Lord came into the world, is signified by, “all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” That the Word was represented by John, as by Elijah, is signified by his being “Elias who is to come.”

[7] The same is signified by these words in Matthew:

The disciples asked Jesus, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come? He answered and said, Elias must needs first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, that Elias hath come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they wished. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them. And they understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist (Matthew 17:10-13).

That “Elias hath come, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they wished” signifies that the Word has indeed taught them that the Lord is to come, but that still they did not wish to comprehend, interpreting it in favor of the rule of self, and thus extinguishing what is Divine in it. That they would do the same with the truth Divine itself, is signified by “even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.” (That “the Son of man” denotes the Lord as to truth Divine, see n. 2803, 2813, 3704)

[8] From all this it is now evident what is meant by the prophecy about John in Malachi:

Behold I send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah cometh (Malachi 4:5).

Moreover, the Word in the ultimate, or such as it is in the external form in which it appears before man in the world, is described by the “clothing” and “food” of John the Baptist, in Matthew:

John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, had His clothing of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his food was locusts and wild honey (Matthew 3:1, 4).

In like manner it is described by Elijah in the second book of Kings:

He was a hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins (2 Kings 1:8).

By “clothing,” or a “garment,” when said of the Word, is signified truth Divine there in the ultimate form; by “camel’s hair” are signified memory-truths such as appear there before a man in the world; by the “leathern girdle” is signified the external bond connecting and keeping in order all the interior things; by “food” is signified spiritual nourishment from the knowledges of truth and of good out of the Word; by “locusts” are signified ultimate or most general truths; and by “wild honey” their pleasantness.

[9] That such things are signified by “clothing” and “food” has its origin in the representatives of the other life, where all appear clothed according to truths from good, and where food also is represented according to the desires of acquiring knowledge and growing wise. From this it is that “clothing,” or a “garment,” denotes truth (as may be seen from the citations above; and that “food” or “meat” denotes spiritual nourishment, n. 3114, 4459, 4792, 5147, 5293, 5340, 5342, 5576, 5579, 5915, 8562, 9003; that “a girdle” denotes a bond which gathers up and holds together interior things, n. 9341; that “leather” denotes what is external, n. 3540; and thus “a leathern girdle” denotes an external bond; that “hairs” denote ultimate or most general truths, n. 3301, 5569-5573; that “a camel” denotes memory-knowledge in general, n. 3048, 3071, 3143, 3145, 4156; that “a locust” denotes nourishing truth in the extremes, n. 7643; and that “honey” denotes the pleasantness thereof, n. 5620, 6857, 8056). It is called “wild honey,” or “honey of the field,” because by “a field” is signified the church (n. 2971, 3317, 3766, 7502, 7571, 9139, 9295). He who does not know that such things are signified, cannot possibly know why Elijah and John were so clothed. And yet that these things signified something peculiar to these prophets, can be thought by everyone who thinks well about the Word.

[10] Because John the Baptist represented the Lord as to the Word, therefore also when he spoke of the Lord, who was the Word itself, he said of himself that he was “not Elias, nor the prophet,” and that he was “not worthy to loose the latchet of the Lord’s shoe,” as in John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory. The Jews from Jerusalem, priests and Levites, asked John who he was. And he confessed, and denied not, I am not the Christ. Therefore they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? But he said, I am not. Art thou the prophet? He answered, No. They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet. They said therefore, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet? He answered, I baptize with water; in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not; He it is who is to come after me, who was before me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose. When he saw Jesus, he said, Behold the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a man who was before me; for he was before me (John 1:1, 14, 19-30).

From these words it is plain that when John spoke about the Lord Himself, who was Truth Divine itself, or the Word, he said that he himself was not anything, because the shadow disappears when the light itself appears, that is, the representative disappears when the original itself makes its appearance. (That the representatives had in view holy things, and the Lord Himself, and not at all the person that represented, see n. 665, 1097, 1361, 3147, 3881, 4208, 4281, 4288, 4292, 4307, 4444, 4500, 6304, 7048, 7439, 8588, 8788, 8806.) One who does not know that representatives vanish like shadows at the presence of light, cannot know why John denied that he was Elias and the prophet.

[11] From all this it can now be seen what is signified by Moses and Elias, who were seen in glory, and who spoke with the Lord when transfigured, of His departure which He should accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:29-31); namely, that they signified the Word (“Moses” the historic Word, and “Elias” the prophetic Word), which in the internal sense throughout treats of the Lord, of His coming into the world, and of His departure out of the world; and therefore it is said that “Moses and Elias were seen in glory,” for “glory” denotes the internal sense of the Word, and the “cloud” its external sense (see the preface to Genesis 18, and n. 5922, 8427).

3654. That in the internal sense of the Word “Judea” does not signify Judea; nor in like manner “Jerusalem,” Jerusalem, may be seen from many passages in the Word. “Judea” is not so frequently mentioned in the Word as is the “land of Judah,” and by the “land of Judah,” as well as by the “land of Canaan,” is signified the Lord’s kingdom (consequently also the church, for the church is the Lord’s kingdom on earth), and this for the reason that the Lord’s celestial kingdom was represented by Judah, or by the Jewish nation, and His spiritual kingdom by Israel, or the Israelitish people; and inasmuch as it was so represented, therefore also when mention is made in the Word of that nation and people, in the internal sense there is nothing else signified thereby.

[2] That this is the case will appear from what of the Lord’s Divine mercy will be said hereafter concerning Judah and the land of Judah; and in the meantime from the following few passages in the Prophets.

In Isaiah:

My beloved had a vineyard in the horn of a son of oil; and he made a hedge about it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with a noble vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also hewed out a winepress therein; and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now O inhabitant of Jerusalem, and man of Judah, judge I pray you between Me and My vineyard. I will make it a desolation. For the vineyard of Jehovah Zebaoth is the house of Israel, and the man of Judah is the plant of His delights; and He looked for judgment, but behold a festering; for righteousness, but behold a cry (Isaiah 5:1-3, 6-7).

In this passage, in the sense of the letter, the perverted state of the Israelites and Jews is treated of, but in the internal sense the perverted state of the church as represented by Israel and Judah. The “inhabitant of Jerusalem” is the good of the church (that “inhabitant” signifies good, or what is the same, those who are in good, may be seen above, n. 2268, 2451, 2712, 3613; and that “Jerusalem” signifies the church, see n. 402, 2117). The signification of the “house of Israel” is similar (that “house” signifies good may be seen above, n. 710, 1708, 2233, 2234, 3142, 3538; and that “Israel” signifies the church, n. 3305); in like manner the “man of Judah,” for by “man” is signified truth (n. 265, 749, 1007, 3134, 3310, 3459), and by “Judah” good, but with the difference that the “man of Judah” signifies truth from the good of love to the Lord (which is called celestial truth), that is, those who are in such truth.

[3] In the same:

And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four wings of the earth. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the enemies of Judah shall be cut off. Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not straiten Ephraim. Jehovah shall accurse the tongue of the Egyptian sea, and with the vehemence of His breath shall shake His hand over the river. And there shall be a highway for the remains of His people, which shall be left from Asshur (Isaiah 11:12-13, 15-16).

The subject here treated of in the sense of the letter is the bringing back of the Israelites and Jews from captivity, but in the internal sense it is concerning a new church in general and with every individual in particular who is being regenerated or is becoming a church. The “outcasts of Israel” denote the truths of such persons; the “dispersed of Judah,” their goods; “Ephraim,” their intellectual part in that it will no longer be resistant; “Egypt,” memory-knowledges; and “Asshur,” the derivative reasoning, which they have perverted; the “outcasts,” the “dispersed,” the “remains,” and “those who are left,” denote the truths and goods which survive. (That “Ephraim” denotes the intellectual part, will be made manifest elsewhere; and that “Egypt” is memory-knowledge, n. 1164-1165, 1186, 1462, 2588, 3325; that “Asshur” is reasoning, n. 119, 1186; and that “remains” are goods and truths from the Lord stored up in the interior man, n. 468, 530, 560, 561, 660, 661, 798, 1050, 1738, 1906, 2284.)

[4] In the same:

Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, called by the name of Israel, and they have come forth out of the waters of Judah. For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel (Isaiah 48:1-2); where the “waters of Judah” denote the truths which are from the good of love to the Lord; the truths thence derived are the very goods of charity, which are called spiritual goods, and constitute the spiritual church, the internal of which is “Israel,” and the external the “house of Jacob;” hence it is manifest what is signified by the “house of Jacob called by the name of Israel,” and by their “coming forth out of the waters of Judah.”

[5] In the same:

I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of My mountains; and Mine elect shall possess it, and My servants shall dwell there (Isaiah 65:9);

“out of Judah an inheritor of mountains” in the supreme sense denotes the Lord, and in the representative sense those who are in love to Him, thus in the good of love to the Lord and of love to the neighbor. (That “mountains” signify these goods was shown above, n. 3652)

[6] So in Moses:

Judah is a lion’s whelp; from the prey my son thou art gone up; he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? (Genesis 49:9); where it is clearly manifest that in the supreme sense by “Judah” is meant the Lord, and in the representative sense those who are in the good of love to Him. So in David:

When Israel went forth out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a barbarous people, Judah became His sanctuary, Israel His dominion (Psalms 114:1-2);

in this passage also “Judah” denotes celestial good, which is the good of love to the Lord; and “Israel,” celestial truth, or spiritual good.

[7] So in Jeremiah:

Behold the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will raise unto David a righteous offshoot, and He shall reign as king, and prosper, and shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.

In His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell securely; and this is His name whereby He shall be called: JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (Jeremiah 23:5-6; 33:15-16); where the Lord’s advent is treated of, “Judah” denoting those who are in the good of love to the Lord; “Israel,” those who are in the truth of this good. That by “Judah” is not meant Judah, nor by “Israel” Israel, is evident from the fact that neither Judah nor Israel was saved. In like manner in the same:

I will cause the captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel to return, and will build them as at the first (Jeremiah 33:7).

In the same:

In those days, and in that time, saith Jehovah, the sons of Israel shall come, they and the sons of Judah together; going and weeping shall they go, and shall seek Jehovah their God; and they shall seek Zion in the way with their faces thitherward (Jeremiah 50:4-5

Again:

At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of Jehovah; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, for the name of Jehovah, to Jerusalem; neither shall they walk any more after the stubbornness of their evil heart. In those days the house of Judah shall walk to the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north upon the land (Jeremiah 3:17-18).

[8] Again:

Behold the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. And I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days; I will put My law in the midst of them, and will write it on their heart (Jeremiah 31:27, 31, 33).

That Israel or the house of Israel is not here meant, is very evident, because they were dispersed among the Gentiles, and were never brought back out of captivity; consequently neither was Judah nor the house of Judah meant, but thereby were signified, in the internal sense, those who are of the Lord’s spiritual and celestial kingdom. With these is made a new covenant, and on their heart is the law written; a “new covenant” denoting conjunction with the Lord by means of good (see n. 665, 666, 1023, 1038, 1864, 1996, 2003, 2021, 2037); the “law written on their heart,” denoting the consequent perception of good and of truth, and also conscience.

[9] So in Joel:

And it shall come to pass in that day that the mountains shall drop new wine, and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the streams of Judah shall flow with waters; and a fountain shall go forth out of the house of Jehovah, and shall water the stream of Shittim. Egypt shall be a waste, and Edom shall be for a wilderness of a waste for the violence done to the sons of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land. But Judah shall abide forever, and Jerusalem to generation and generation (Joel 3:18, 20);

from all the particulars in this passage also it is manifest that by “Judah” is not meant Judah, nor by “Jerusalem,” Jerusalem, but those who are in the holy of love and of charity; for these “shall abide forever, and to generation and generation.”

[10] So in Malachi:

Behold I send Mine angel who shall prepare the way before Me; and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple, even the angel of the covenant whom ye desire. Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto Jehovah, as in the days of eternity, and as in former years (Malachi 3:1, 4); where the Lord’s advent is treated of. That at that time the offering of Judah and Jerusalem was not pleasant unto Jehovah, is evident; and from this it is manifest that by “Judah and Jerusalem” are signified such things as are of the Lord’s church. The case is the same everywhere in the Word where mention is made of “Judah,” of “Israel,” and of “Jerusalem.” From all this then it is evident what is signified by “Judah” in Matthew, namely, the Lord’s church, in the present case vastated.

3324. And Jacob said. That this signifies the doctrine of truth, is evident from the representation of Jacob, as being the doctrine of natural truth (n. 3305); or what is the same, those who are in the doctrine of truth. In these verses down to the end of this chapter to the end, the subject treated of is the right of priority, as to whether it is of truth or of good; or what is the same, whether it is of the doctrine of truth or of the life of good; or what is still the same, whether it is of faith insofar as this is truth of doctrine, or whether it is of charity insofar as this is good of life. When man draws a conclusion from natural perception, he believes that faith, insofar as it is truth of doctrine, is prior to charity insofar as this is good of life, because he perceives how the truth of doctrine enters, but not how the good of life; for the former enters by an external, that is, a sensuous way, while the latter enters by an internal way; and also because he cannot know otherwise than that as truth teaches what is good, it is prior to good; and also because the reformation of man is effected through truth and according to truth, insomuch that man is perfected as to good in proportion to the amount of truth that can be conjoined with it, consequently good is perfected through truth; and what is more, because man can be in truth, and think and speak from it, and this with apparent zeal, although he is not at the same time in good; yea, he may even from truth be confident of his salvation. These and many other considerations lead man to suppose, when judging from the sensuous and natural man, that the truth which is of faith is prior to the good which is of charity; but all these are reasonings from fallacies, based on the appearance to the sensuous and natural man.

[2] The good itself which is of life is prior; the good which is of life being the very ground in which truths are to be sown; and such as is the ground, such is the reception of the seeds, that is, of the truths of faith. Truths may indeed be first stored up in the memory, like seeds in a granary, or with birds in their crops; but they do not belong to the man unless the ground is prepared; and such as is the ground, that is, such as is the good, such is their germination and fructification. But see on this subject what has been already shown in many places, which will be here cited in order that it may be known what good is and what truth, and that the priority belongs to good and not to truth:

[3] Why there is no distinctive idea as between good and truth (n. 2507). That good flows in by an internal way unknown to man, while truth is procured by an external way known to man (n. 3030, 3098). That truths are vessels recipient of good (n. 1496, 1832, 1900, 2063, 2261, 2269, 3068, 3318). That good acknowledges its truth, with which it may be conjoined (n. 3101, 3102, 3179); and that most exquisite exploration is made and precaution taken lest falsity be conjoined with good, and truth with evil (n. 3033, 3101, 3102). That good makes for itself the truth with which it may be conjoined, because it does not acknowledge anything as truth except that which agrees with it (n. 3161). That truth is nothing else than that which is from good (n. 2434).

[4] That truth is the form of good (n. 3049). That truth has in itself an image of good; and in good the very effigy of itself from which it exists (n. 3180). That the seed which is truth is rooted in the good which is of charity (n. 880). That faith is impossible except in its life, that is, in love and charity (379, 389, 654, 724, 1608, 2343, 2349). That from love and charity man can look to the truths which pertain to the doctrinal things of faith, but not the reverse; and that to look from faith, and not from love and charity, is to look behind one’s self, and to turn back (n. 2454). That truth is made alive in accordance with the good of each person, thus in accordance with the state of innocence and charity in man (n. 1776, 3111). That the truths of faith can be received only by those who are in good (n. 2343, 2349). That they who are in no charity cannot acknowledge the Lord, thus not any truth of faith; and that if they profess such acknowledgment, it is something external without an internal, or is from hypocrisy (n. 2354). That there is no faith where there is no charity (n. 654, 1162, 1176, 2429). That wisdom, intelligence, and memory-knowledge are the sons of charity (n. 1226). That the angels are in intelligence and wisdom because they are in love (n. 2500, 2572).

[5] That angelic life consists in the goods of charity, and that the angels are forms of charity (n. 454, 553). That love to the Lord is a “likeness” of Him, and charity toward the neighbor an “image” of Him (n. 1013). That through love to the Lord the angels perceive whatever is of faith (n. 202). That nothing lives except love and affection (n. 1589). That they who have mutual love, or charity, have the Lord’s life (n. 1799, 1803). That love to the Lord and the neighbor is heaven itself (n. 1802, 1824, 2057, 2130-2131). That the presence of the Lord is according to the state of love and charity (n. 904). That all the commandments of the Decalogue, and all things of faith, are in charity (n. 1121, 1798). That knowledge of the doctrinal things of faith effects nothing unless the man has charity, for doctrinal things look to charity as their end (n. 2049, 2116). That neither the acknowledgment of truth, nor faith, is possible unless the man is in good (n. 2261). That the holy of worship is according to the quality and quantity of the truth of faith implanted in charity (n. 2190).

[6] That there is no salvation by faith, but by the life of faith, which is charity (n. 2228, 2261). That the heavenly kingdom is given to those who have the faith of charity (n. 1608). That in heaven all are regarded from their charity and the derivative faith (n. 1258). That none are admitted into heaven except by willing good from the heart (n. 2401). That they are saved who are in faith, provided that in their faith there is good (n. 2261, 2442). That the faith which has not been implanted in the good of life altogether perishes in the other life (n. 2228). That if the faith of thought were saving, all would be brought into heaven; but because the life opposes they cannot be brought in (n. 2363). That they who hold as a principle that faith alone saves, contaminate truths by the falsity of this principle (n. 2383, 2385). That the fruit of faith is good work, good work is charity, charity is love to the Lord, love to the Lord is the the Lord, (n. 1873). That the fruits of faith are fruits of the good which is of love and charity (n. 3146).

[7] That the trust or confidence which is said to be saving faith is not possible except with those who are in the good of life (n. 2982). That good is the life of truth (n. 1589). When it is that truths are said to have gained life (n. 1928). That good from the Lord flows into truths of every kind, but it is of the greatest importance that they should be genuine truths (n. 2531). That good and truth from the Lord flow in just in proportion as that which is evil and false is removed (n. 2411, 3142, 3147). That good cannot flow into truth so long as the man is in evil (n. 2388). That truth is not truth until it is accepted by good (n. 2429). That there is a marriage of good and of truth in things all and each (n. 2173, 2503, 2507). That the affection of good is of life, and the affection of truth is for the sake of life (n. 2455). That truth tends to good, and proceeds from good (n. 2063).

[8] That by influx truths are called forth out of the natural man, elevated, and implanted in good in the rational man (n. 3085, 3086). That when truth is conjoined with a man, it is appropriated to him (n. 3108). That in order that truth may be conjoined with good, there must be consent by the understanding and by the will, and when by the will, then conjunction takes place (n. 3157, 3158). That the rational as to truth is acquired by means of knowledges; and that truths are appropriated when they are conjoined with good; and that they are then of the will, and for the sake of life (n. 3161). That truth is not at once initiated and conjoined with good, but during the whole life, and also afterwards (n. 3200). That as light without heat produces nothing, so the truth of faith produces nothing without the good of love (n. 3146). What the idea of truth without good is; and what its light is in the other life (n. 2228). That faith separated is like the light of winter; and faith from charity like the light of spring (n. 2231). That they who in act separate truth, which is faith, from charity, cannot have conscience (n. 1076, 1077). The reason why men have separated faith from charity, and have declared that faith saves (n. 2231).

[9] That during man’s regeneration the Lord insinuates good into the truths that are in him (n. 2183, 2189). That man is not regenerated by means of truth, but by means of good (n. 989, 2146, 2183, 2189, 2697). That during man’s regeneration the Lord goes to meet and fills with the good of charity the truths that are in him (n. 2063). That they who are in the good of life, and not in the truth of faith, as is the case with Gentiles and infants, receive the truths of faith in the other life, and are regenerated (n. 989); concerning the Gentiles (n. 932, 1032, 2049, 2284, 2589-2604); concerning infants (n. 2290-2293, 2302-2304). That man is regenerated by means of the affection of truth; and that when he is regenerated he acts from the affection of good (n. 1904). That in one about to be regenerated the seed can take root only in good (n. 880, 989). That the light of a regenerate man is from charity not from faith ¹ (n. 854). That the same truths in one person may be true, in another less true, and in others may even be falsities, and that this is according to the good which is of the life (n. 2439). What the difference is between the good of infancy, the good of ignorance, and the good of intelligence (n. 2280). Who can come into the knowledges of truth and into faith, and who cannot (n. 2689).

[10] That the church is not a church unless the truths of doctrine are implanted in the good of life (n. 3310). That what is doctrinal does not make the church, but charity (n. 809, 916, 1798, 1799, 1834, 1844). That the doctrinal things of a church are nothing, unless its members live according to them (n. 1515). That the doctrine of faith is the doctrine of charity (n. 2571). That the church is from charity, and not from faith separated (n. 916). That everyone may know from charity whether he has the internal of worship (n. 1102, 1151, 1153). That the church of the Lord throughout the world is everywhere various as to truths, but that it is one through charity (n. 3267). That the church would be one if all had charity, even though its members differed as to ritual and doctrinal matters (n. 809, 1285, 1316, 1798, 1799, 1834, 1844). That out of many would be made one church, if all accounted charity and not faith as being that which is essential of the church (n. 2982). That there are two kinds of doctrinal things, the doctrinal things of charity and the doctrinal things of faith; and that in the Ancient Church there were the doctrinal things of charity, which at this day are among the things that are lost (n. 2417).

[11] In what ignorance of truth they are who are not in the doctrinal things of charity (n. 2435). And whereas at this day faith is made the essential of the church, men do not even see, nor attend to the things the Lord so often said concerning love and charity (n. 1017, 2373). That the good which is of love to the Lord and of charity toward the neighbor, is superior and prior to the truth which is of faith; and not the reverse (n. 363, 364).

അടിക്കുറിപ്പുകൾ: