371. De Oudsten duidden met het spreken van Jehovah de innerlijke gewaarwording aan, want zij wisten, dat de Heer hun de innerlijke gewaarwording gaf; deze gewaarwording kon alleen bestaan zolang als de liefde de hoofdzaak was; zodra de liefde tot de Heer en bijgevolg de liefde jegens de naasten ophield, ging de innerlijke gewaarwording te gronde; en er bleef zoveel gewaarwording over als er liefde restte. Dit innerlijke gevoel was de Oudste Kerk eigen, maar nadat het geloof van de liefde was gescheiden, zoals bij degenen die na de vloed, en de naastenliefde door het geloof werd gegeven, volgde het geweten, dat eveneens een innerlijke stem laat horen, maar op een andere wijze, waarover, door de Goddelijke barmhartigheid van de Heer, meer in hetgeen volgt. Wanneer het geweten spreekt, wordt in het Woord evenzo gezegd, dat de Heer spreekt, omdat het geweten zich vormt uit de aan het Woord ontleende openbaringen en erkentenissen, en wanneer het Woord spreekt of een innerlijke stem laat horen, is het de Heer Die spreekt. Daarom is het, zelfs heden nog, hoogst gebruikelijk om te zeggen dat de Heer spreekt, wanneer het handelt over een zaak van het geweten of van het geloof.

2144. 'In the oak-groves of Mamre' means the character of the perception. This is clear from the representation and meaning of 'oak-groves', and also from the representation and meaning of 'Mamre'. What oak-groves in general represented and meant has been shown in Volume One, in 1442, 1443, and what the oak-grove of Mamre specifically represented and meant, in 1616, namely perceptions, though of a human kind such as spring from factual knowledge and from the initial rational concepts derived from that knowledge.

[2] What perception is, is totally unknown at the present day, for nobody today possesses the kind of perception that the ancient and especially the most ancient people possessed. The latter knew from perception whether a thing was good and consequently whether it was true. There was an influx from the Lord by way of heaven into the rational part of their minds, and from that influx when they thought about anything holy, they perceived instantly whether a thing was so or was not so. Later on such perception with mankind perished and people began to entertain heavenly ideas no more but only worldly and bodily ones; and when this happened the place of such perception was taken by conscience (which also is a kind of perception), for acting contrary to conscience and according to conscience is nothing else than discerning from conscience whether a thing is so or not so, or whether it ought to be done.

[3] But perception that goes with conscience does not originate in inflowing good but in truth which from earliest childhood has been implanted in the rational part of the mind in accordance with the holiness of people's worship, and after that has been confirmed; for that truth alone is believed by them to be good. Consequently conscience is a kind of perception, but it has its origin in truth such as this; and when charity and innocence are introduced into it by the Lord, the good that goes with that conscience is then brought into being. These few considerations show what perception is. Yet between perception and conscience there is a wide difference. See what has been stated about perception in Volume One, in 104, 125, 371, 483, 495, 503, 521, 536, 597, 607, 784, 865, 895, 1121, 1616; about the perception spirits and angels have, in 202, 203, 1008, 1383, 1384, 1390-1392, 1394, 1397, 1504; and about the learned not knowing what perception is, in 1387.

[4] As regards the Lord when He lived in the world, all of His thought sprang from Divine perception since He alone was a Divine and Celestial Man. For He has been the only one in whom Jehovah Himself was present and from whom His perception came, also dealt with in Volume One, in 1616, 1791. His perceptions became more and more interior the closer He came to union with Jehovah. The nature of His perception at this time becomes clear from what has been stated in Volume One, in 1616, about the oak-groves of Mamre; and then the nature of it when He perceived the things contained in this chapter is described in what follows below.

521. 'He was no more for God took him' means that that doctrine reserved for use by descendants. He was no more. As regards Enoch, that which the Most Ancient Church had perceived, as has been stated, was converted by him into doctrine, something that had not been allowed to people of that period. For knowing something from perception is altogether different from learning it from doctrine. People who have perception have no need to learn through the channel of formulated doctrine what they know already. Take, for the sake of illustration, someone who knows already how to think clearly. He has no need to learn rules on how to think. If he did so his ability to think clearly would perish, as happens to people buried in the dust of sheer intellectualism. In the case of people whose knowledge comes from perception, the Lord grants them to know what good and truth are through an internal channel, while those who learn from doctrine are granted it by an external channel, that is, by way of the physical senses. The difference between the two is like that between light and darkness. Furthermore the perceptions of the celestial man lie beyond all description, for they enter into the smallest details and are for ever varied according to states and attendant circumstances. Now as it was foreseen that the perceptivity of the Most Ancient Church would perish, and that subsequently people would learn what truth and good were by means of doctrines, that is, they would come to the light by way of darkness, it is therefore said here that 'God took him', which is to say, He preserved such doctrine for the use of descendants.