251. The reason why the “serpent” means all evil in general, and specifically the love of self, is that all evil has had its rise from that sensuous part of the mind, and also from that memory-knowledge [scientifico], which at first were signified by the “serpent;” and therefore it here denotes evil of every kind, and specifically the love of self, or hatred against the neighbor and the Lord, which is the same thing. As this evil or hatred was various, consisting of numerous genera and still more numerous species, it is described in the Word by various kinds of serpents, as “snakes” “cockatrices” “asps” “adders” “fiery serpents” “serpents that fly” and “that creep” and “vipers” according to the differences of the poison, which is hatred. Thus we read in Isaiah:

Rejoice not thou, whole Philistia, because the rod which smiteth thee is broken, for out of the serpent’s root shall go forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a flying fire-serpent (Isaiah 14:29).The “serpent’s root” denotes that part of the mind, or that principle, which is connected with the senses and with memory-knowledge [est sensuale et scientificum]; the “cockatrice” denotes evil originating in the falsity thence derived; and the “flying fire-serpent” the cupidity that comes from the love of self. By the same Prophet also similar things are elsewhere thus described:

They hatch cockatrice’s eggs, and weave the spider’s web; he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and when it is crushed there cometh out a viper (Isaiah 59:5).

The serpent described here in Genesis is called in the Revelation the “great and red dragon” and the “old serpent” and also the “devil and satan” that “deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:3, 9; 20:2), where, and also in other places, by the “devil” is not meant any particular devil who is prince over the others, but the whole crew of evil spirits, and evil itself.

240. 5. Of these internal reasons for cold states, the first is rejection of religion by both partners. No good love exists in people who reject the sanctities of the church and banish them from the front of their heads to the back, or from before their hearts to behind them. If any seemingly good love is manifested by the body, still none exists in the spirit. In people like this, good virtues surround evils and cover them up, like a garment glistening with gold but covering up a decayed and putrid body. In general, the evils which lie within and are covered up are feelings of hatred for and so internal battles against everything spiritual. For all matters having to do with the church, which they reject, are essentially spiritual.

So, because truly conjugial love is the fundamental love of all spiritual loves (as we have shown previously), ¹ it is apparent that people like this have an inward hatred for it, and that they have an inward or inherent love for its opposite, which is a love of adultery. Consequently they, more than others, may be expected to ridicule this truth, that everyone possesses conjugial love according to the state of the church in him. Indeed, they may guffaw perhaps at the mere mention of truly conjugial love. But let them laugh. Yet they must be pardoned, because it is as impossible for them to think of embraces in marriage as any different from embraces in licentious relationships, as it is for a camel to force its way through the eye of a needle. ²

People who are of this character experience a greater coldness than others in respect to conjugial love. If they remain faithful to their married partners, they do so only for some of the external reasons recounted above in no. 153, which hold them and keep them from straying. In their case, the inner faculties, which are faculties of the soul and from that of the mind, are more and more closed up, and in the body obstructed; and then even love for the opposite sex becomes a matter of indifference, or it smolders with an insane lasciviousness in the interior recesses of the body and so in the bottommost elements of their thought.

People like this are also meant by the ones in the narrative account in no. 79. Let them read it if they like.

Footnotes: