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).

3704. And the God of Isaac. That this signifies the Lord as to the Divine Human, is evident from the representation of Isaac, as being the Lord’s Divine rational; and as the rational is that in which the human begins (see n. 2194), and thus from which and by which the human is; therefore here by the “God of Isaac” is signified the Divine Human of the Lord. As in heaven, and with man, and even in universal nature, all things both in general and in particular have relation to good and truth, therefore also the Lord’s Divine is distinguished into Divine good and Divine truth, and the Lord’s Divine good is called “father,” and his Divine truth “son”; but the Lord’s Divine is nothing else than good; yea, good itself; and Divine truth is the Lord’s Divine good so appearing in heaven; that is, before the angels. The case herein is the same as with the sun; in its essence the sun itself is nothing but fire, and the light which is thence seen is not in the sun, but from the sun. (That the Lord as to Divine good is represented by the sun, and also that in the other life He is a sun to the universal heaven, may be seen above, n. 1053, 1521, 1529-1531, 2495, 3636, 3643; and that the Lord as to Divine truth is represented by light, and also is light in the other life to the universal heaven, see n. 1053, 1521, 1529-1530, 2776, 3138, 3195, 3222-3223, 3339, 3341, 3636, 3643)

[2] Thus the Lord in His essence is nothing else than Divine good, and this as to both the Divine Itself and the Divine Human; but Divine truth is not in Divine good, but from Divine good, for as before said so does Divine good appear in heaven. And as Divine good comes to appearance as Divine truth, therefore for the sake of man’s apprehension the Lord’s Divine is distinguished into Divine good and Divine truth, and Divine good is that which in the Word is called “Father,” and Divine truth is that which is called “Son.” This is the arcanum which lies concealed in the fact that the Lord Himself so often speaks of His Father as distinct, and as if another than Himself; and yet in other places asserts that He is one with Himself. (That in the internal sense “Father” signifies good; and in the supreme sense, the Lord as to Divine good, has been shown above, n. 3703; and also that “Son” signifies truth, and the “Son of God,” and the “Son of man,” the Lord as to Divine truth, n. 1729, 1730, 2159, 2803, 2813.) And the same is evident from all those passages where the Lord makes mention of His “Father,” and calls Himself the “Son.”

[3] That it is the Lord who in the Word of the Old Testament is called “Jehovah,” may be seen above (n. 1343, 1736, 2921); and that He is there also called “Father” is evident from the following passages.

In Isaiah:

Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6); where it is very evident that the “Child born” and the “Son given unto us” is the Lord; thus it is the Lord who is called the “Father of Eternity.”

In Jeremiah:

I will be a Father to Israel, and Ephraim shall be My firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9);

speaking of the Lord, who is “the God of Israel” and “the Holy One of Israel,” as may be seen above (n. 3305); and here a “Father to Israel.”

In Malachi:

Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us? (Malachi 2:10); where in the internal sense “to create” signifies to regenerate; as also in other passages of the Word (see n. 16, 88, 472); and as the Lord is the only Regenerator and Redeemer, it is He who is here called “Father” and “God.” As also in Isaiah:

Thou art our Father, for Abraham knoweth us not, and Israel doth not acknowledge us; thou Jehovah art our Father, our Redeemer, Thy name is from everlasting (Isaiah 63:16).

[4] Again:

I will clothe Him with thy tunic, and strengthen Him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into His hand; that He may be a Father to the inhabitant of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah; and the key of the house of David will I lay upon His shoulder; and He shall open and none shall shut, and He shall shut and none shall open; and I will fasten Him as a nail in a sure place, and He may be for a throne of glory of His Father; and they shall hang upon Him all the glory of His Father’s house, of sons and grandsons, every small vessel, from the vessels of cups even to all the vessels of psalteries (Isaiah 22:21-24).

That it is the Lord who in the internal sense is here represented and signified, and is called a “Father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah,” is very evident; for it is He upon whose shoulder is the key of the house of David, who openeth and none shutteth, and who shutteth and none openeth (see preface to chapter 22); and He has the throne of His Father’s glory, and upon Him and from Him are all holy things, which are here called “vessels”; celestial things, “vessels of cups”; and holy spiritual things, “vessels of psalteries.”

[5] As kings and priests represented the Lord; kings, by their royalty, the Lord as to Divine truth; and priests the Lord as to Divine good (n. 3670), therefore priests were called “fathers,” as may be seen in the book of Judges:

Micah said to the Levite, Dwell with me, and be unto me a father and a priest (Judg. 17:10).

In like manner said to him the sons of Dan:

Hold thy peace, lay thy hand upon thy mouth, and go with us, and be to us a father and a priest (Judg. 18:19).

That kings themselves also so called them is evident in the second book of Kings:

The king of Israel said unto Elisha, My father, shall I smite them? And he answered, Thou shalt not smite (2 Kings 6:21-22);

and Joash the king so addressed Elisha when Elisha died:

He wept over his face, and said, my father, my father, the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof (2 Kings 13:14).

The reason why kings so called them was that the kings represented the Lord as to Divine truth; and the priests represented Him as to Divine good; and also because truth in respect to good is as a son to a father, for truth is from good.

[6] This is well known in the other life, and therefore in heaven they call no other Father than the Lord, and perceive no other as meant by “Father” in the Word of the Evangelists (see n. 15, 1729). When being initiated into the good of love and its truth, all little children are there taught to acknowledge the Lord alone as their Father; nay, even novitiates who come into heaven are taught with solicitous care that there is one God; and they who have been born within the church are taught that the whole Trinity is in the Lord; for almost all who come from the Christian world bring with them an idea of three gods, although with their lips they had said that there is but one God; for to think of one, when the idea of three has before entered, and when each of these is called God, and also is distinguished from the others as to attributes and offices, and likewise is separately worshiped, is humanly impossible; consequently the worship of three gods is in the heart, while the worship of one only is in the mouth.

[7] That the whole Trinity is in the Lord is known in the Christian world, and yet among these in the other life the Lord is little thought of; nay, His Human is a stumbling-block to many, because they distinguish the Human from the Divine, neither do they believe it to be Divine; and a man will call himself justified, and thus made pure and almost holy; but these people do not think that the Lord was glorified, that is, that His Human was made Divine; when yet He was conceived from Jehovah Himself; and moreover no one can be justified, much less sanctified, except from the Divine, and indeed from the Lord’s Divine Human, which is represented and signified in the Holy Supper, where it is expressly said that the bread is His body and the wine His blood. That the Lord is one with the Father, and that He is from eternity, and that He rules the universe, consequently that He is Divine good and Divine truth itself, is very evident from the Word.

[8] That HE IS ONE WITH THE FATHER, is evident from these words in John:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18).

The Jews sought the more to kill Jesus because He had also said that God was His own Father, making Himself equal with God. Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these doeth the Son likewise. As the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom He will. Neither doth the Father judge any man, but He hath given all judgment unto the Son; that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. For as the Father hath life in Himself, even so hath He given to the Son also to have life in Himself. The Father who hath sent Me hath Himself borne witness of Me; ye have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape. Search the Scriptures, for these are they which bear witness of Me (John 5:18, etc.).

By “Father” is here meant, as was said, Divine good; and by “Son,” Divine truth, both in the Lord. From Divine good which is the “Father,” nothing can proceed or go forth but what is Divine, and that which proceeds or goes forth is Divine truth, which is the “Son.”

[9] Again:

Everyone that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto Me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save He that is with the Father, He hath seen the Father (John 6:45-46).

They said therefore unto Him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know Me nor My Father; if ye knew Me ye would know My Father also (John 8:19).

I and the Father are one: though ye believe not Me, believe the works; that ye may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father (John 10:30, 38).

Jesus said, He that believeth in Me, believeth not in Me, but in Him that sent Me; and he that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in Me may not abide in darkness (John 12:44-46).

By “the Father sending Him” is signified, in the internal sense, that He proceeds from the Father; and the same is signified in other passages where the Lord says that the Father “sent” Him. That the “light” is Divine truth may be seen above.

[10] Again:

I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one cometh unto the Father but by Me. If ye had known Me ye would have known My Father also; and from henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him. Philip saith unto Him, Lord, show us the Father. Jesus saith unto him, Am I so long time with you, and hast thou not known Me, Philip? He that seeth Me, seeth the Father; how then sayest thou, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not from Myself; but the Father that abideth in Me, He doeth the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me. And whatsoever ye shall ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son (John 14:6-13).

He that hath My commandments, and doeth them, he it is that loveth Me; and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself unto him. If a man love Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him and make Our abode with him (John 14:21, 23).

[11] They who are in Divine truth are they who “have His commandments and do them”; and they who are in Divine good are they who “love Him;” of whom it is therefore said that He “shall be loved of the Father,” and “We will come unto him and make Our abode with him”; that is, Divine good and Divine truth will do so; and therefore it is said in the same Evangelist:

In that day ye shall know that I am in My Father, and ye in Me (John 14:20).

Holy Father, keep them in Thy name; that they may be one, even as We are (John 17:11).

From these passages it is evident that the Lord speaks of the “Father” from the Divine good that He Himself had, and of the “Son” from the Divine truth which is from the Divine good; thus that the “Father” and “Son” are not two, but one. The reason why the Lord so spoke, was that the Word might be received as well on earth as in heaven; and also because, before the Lord was glorified, He was the Divine truth that is from Divine good; but when He had been glorified, He was Divine good itself as to each essence, and from Him is all Divine good and Divine truth.

[12] THAT THE LORD WAS FROM ETERNITY may be seen from the fact that it is the Lord who spoke by the Prophets; and that for this reason, and also because from Him was Divine truth, He was called the “Word”; concerning which in John:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made.

In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we held His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:1-4, 14).

The “Word” denotes all truth in the heavens and on earth that is from the Divine.

[13] That the Lord was from eternity He plainly teaches elsewhere in John:

John said, This was He of whom I said, He that cometh after me was before me, for He was prior to me. In the midst of you there standeth One whom ye know not; He it is who is to come after me, who was before me (John 1:15, 26-27, 30).

If ye should see the Son of man ascending where He was before (John 6:62).

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58).

Jesus knowing that He came forth from God, and went to God (John 13:3).

The Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father. I came out from the Father, and came into the world; again I leave the world, and go unto the Father (John 16:27-28).

I have glorified Thee on the earth, I have accomplished the work which Thou gavest Me to do. And now O Father glorify Me with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was; that they may behold My glory which Thou hast given Me, for Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the world (John 17:4-5, 24).

In Isaiah:

Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).

[14] THAT THE LORD RULES THE UNIVERSE is evident in Matthew:

All things have been delivered unto Me of My Father (Matthew 11:27).

Jesus said to His disciples, All power is given unto Me in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18).

In John:

The Father loveth the Son and hath given all things into His hand; he that believeth in the Son hath eternal life (John 3:35-36).

The Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment unto the Son (John 5:22).

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into His hand (John 13:3).

All things whatsoever that the Father hath are Mine (John 16:15).

Jesus said, Glorify Thy Son, that Thy Son also may glorify Thee; even as Thou hast given Him authority over all flesh (John 17:1-2).

All things that are Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine; and I am glorified in them. And I am no more in the world, for I come to Thee (John 17:10-11).

In Luke:

All things have been delivered unto Me of My Father (Luke 10:22).

[15] From the above passages it is therefore evident that Divine good is that which is called the “Father”; and Divine truth that which is called the “Son”; and that the Lord from Divine good by Divine truth rules all things in the universe, in both general and particular. This being so, and it being so evident from the Word, it is astonishing that in the Christian world, men do not, as in heaven, acknowledge and adore the Lord alone, and thus the one God; for they know and teach that the whole Trinity is in the Lord. That the Holy Spirit, who also is worshiped as a God distinct from the Son and the Father, is the Holy of the spirit, or the Holy which through spirits or angels proceeds from the Lord, that is, from His Divine good through His Divine truth, will of the Lord’s Divine mercy be shown elsewhere.

5084. Of the house of the prince of the guards. That this signifies by those things which are primary for interpretation, is evident from the signification of the “prince of the guards,” as being what is primary for interpretation (n. 4790, 4966). Here therefore the signification is that the sensuous things of both kinds were rejected by the things primary for interpretation, namely those which are of the Word as to the internal sense; and these sensuous things are said to be rejected when they have no faith in such things; for sensuous things and those which by their means enter immediately into the thought, are fallacious, and all the fallacies which prevail in man are from this source. It is from these that few believe the truths of faith, and that the natural man is opposed to the spiritual, that is, the external man to the internal; and therefore if the natural or external man begins to rule over the spiritual or internal man, the things of faith are no longer believed; for fallacies overshadow and cupidities suffocate them.

[2] As few know what the fallacies of the senses are, and few believe that they induce so great a shade on rational things, and most of all on the spiritual things of faith, even so as to extinguish them, especially when the man is at the same time in the delight of the cupidities from the love of self and the love of the world, the subject may be illustrated by examples, showing first what are the fallacies of the senses which are merely natural, or in those things which are in nature, and then what are the fallacies of the senses in spiritual things. 1. It is a fallacy of merely natural sense, or that which is in nature, to believe that the sun revolves once each day around this earth, and also the sky with all the stars; and although it is said that it is incredible-because impossible-that so great an ocean of fire as is the sun, and not only the sun but also innumerable stars, should revolve around the earth once every day without any change of place relatively to one another, and although it is added that it may be seen from the planets that the earth performs a daily and annual motion by rotation and revolution, the planets also being earths, some of them with moons revolving around them, and making—as is known by observation—daily and annual motions like our earth; nevertheless with very many persons the fallacy of sense prevails, that it is as it appears to the eye.

[3] 2. It is a fallacy of merely natural sense, or that which is in nature, that there is only a single atmosphere, and that this is merely successively purer from one portion to another, and that where it ceases there is a vacuum. When only the external sensuous of man is consulted, it apprehends no otherwise. 3. It is a fallacy of merely natural sense, that from the first creation there has been impressed on seeds a property of growing up into trees and flowers, and of reproducing themselves, and that from this is the coming into existence and subsistence of all things. And if it is urged that it is not possible for anything to subsist unless it perpetually comes into existence, according to the law that subsistence is a perpetual coming into existence, and also that everything not connected with something prior to itself falls into nothing, still the sensuous of the body and the thought from this sensuous does not apprehend it, nor that each and all things subsist in the same way that they came into existence, by influx from the spiritual world, that is to say through the spiritual world from the Divine.

[4] 4. Hence it is a fallacy of merely natural sense that there are simple substances, which are monads and atoms; for whatever is within the range of the external sensuous, the natural man believes to be a simple substance, or else nothing. 5. It is a fallacy of merely natural sense that all things are of nature and from nature, and that there indeed is something in purer or interior nature which is not apprehended; but if it is said that within or above nature there is what is spiritual and celestial, this is rejected; and it is believed that if it is not natural, it is nothing. 6. It is a fallacy of sense that only the body lives, and that its life perishes when it dies. The sensuous does not at all apprehend that the internal man is in every particular of the external man, and that the internal man is within nature, and in the spiritual world; hence it does not believe, because it does not apprehend, that the internal man will live after death unless it is again clothed with the body (n. 5078, 5079).

[5] 7. Hence it is a fallacy of sense that man cannot live after death any more than the beasts, because these also have a life similar in many respects to that of man, man being only a more perfect animal. The sensuous, that is, the man who thinks and draws conclusions therefrom, does not apprehend that man is above the beasts and has a higher life, because he can think not only about the causes of things, but also about the Divine, and can by faith and love be conjoined with the Divine, and also receive influx therefrom and make it his own, thus that as there is reciprocity in man there is also reception, as is by no means the case with beasts.

[6] 8. It is a fallacy thence derived that the very living part of man, which is called the soul, is merely something ethereal, or flamy, which is dissipated when the man dies; and that it resides in the heart, or in the brain, or in some part of this, and from thence rules the body as if this were a machine. That the internal man is in every part of the external man, and that the eye does not see from itself, nor the ear hear from itself, but from the internal man, the sensuous man does not apprehend. 9. It is a fallacy of sense that light, and also heat, can come from no other source than the sun or elementary fire. That there is light in which is intelligence, and heat in which is heavenly love, and that all the angels are in this light and heat, the sensuous does not apprehend. 10. It is a fallacy of sense that man believes that he lives of himself, or that life has been imparted to him; for so it appears to the sensuous mind. That it is the Divine alone which has life of itself, and thus that there is only one life, and that the lives in the world are only recipient forms, the sensuous mind does not at all apprehend (see n. 1954, 2706, 2886-2889, 2893, 3001, 3318, 3337, 3338, 3484, 3742, 3743, 4151, 4249, 4318-4320, 4417, 4523, 4524, 4882).

[7] 11. The sensuous man believes from fallacy that adulteries are allowable; for from the sensuous he concludes that marriages are instituted merely in behalf of order for the sake of the education of the offspring; and that so long as this order is not destroyed, it is immaterial from whom the offspring comes; and also that what is of marriage differs from lasciviousness merely in its being allowed; thus also that it would not be contrary to order to marry more than one wife, if it were not forbidden by the Christian world from Holy Scripture. If they are told that there is a correspondence between the heavenly marriage and marriages on earth, and that no one can have in himself anything of marriage unless he is in spiritual truth and good, also that genuine marriage cannot possibly exist between a husband and several wives, and hence that marriages are in themselves holy, these things are rejected by the sensuous man as of no account. 12. It is a fallacy of sense that the Lord’s kingdom, or heaven, resembles an earthly kingdom in respect that the joy and happiness there consist in one being greater than another, and hence having more glory than another; for the sensuous does not at all comprehend what is meant by the least being greatest, or the last first. If they are told that joy in heaven or to the angels consists in serving others by benefiting them, without any thought of merit or recompense, this strikes them as something sad. 13. It is a fallacy of sense that good works merit reward, and that to benefit anyone for the sake of self is a good work. 14. It is also a fallacy of sense that man is saved by faith alone, and that faith can exist in one who has no charity, and also that it is the faith, and not the life, that remains after death. In like manner in very many other instances. When therefore what is sensuous rules in man, the rational enlightened from the Divine sees nothing and is in thick darkness, and it is then believed that everything is rational which is concluded from what is sensuous.