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).

4581. And he poured out a drink-offering thereon. That this signifies the Divine good of truth, is evident from the signification of a “drink-offering,” as being the Divine good of truth, of which below; but first I will state what the good of truth is. The good of truth is that which has elsewhere been called the good of faith, and is love toward the neighbor, or charity. There are two universal kinds of good, one of which is called the good of faith, and the other the good of love. The good of faith is what is signified by a “drink-offering,” and the good of love by “oil.” They who are brought by the Lord to good by an internal way are in the good of love, but they who are brought by an external way are in the good of faith. The men of the celestial church, and likewise the angels of the inmost or third heaven, are in the good of love; but the men of the spiritual church, and likewise the angels of the middle or second heaven, are in the good of faith. For this reason the former good is called celestial good, but the latter spiritual good. The difference is the same as that between willing well from good will, and willing well from good understanding. The latter therefore, namely, spiritual good, or the good of faith, or the good of truth, is what is signified by a “drink-offering;” but the former, namely, celestial good, or the good of love, is what is understood in the internal sense by “oil.”

[2] That such things were signified by the “oil” and the “drink-offering” cannot indeed be seen except from the internal sense, and yet it must be apparent to everyone that holy things were represented, for otherwise what else would be the pouring out of a drink-offering and of oil upon a pillar of stone than a ridiculous and idolatrous performance? And so in the making of a king, unless holy things were signified and involved in the putting of a crown on his head, anointing him with oil from a horn upon his forehead and upon his wrists, putting a scepter into his hand besides a sword and keys, investing him with a crimson robe and then seating him upon a throne of silver; and afterwards in his riding on a horse in royal trappings and being served at table by those of highest rank, not to mention other formalities, unless all these ceremonies represented holy things, and were venerable through their correspondence with the things of heaven and thence of the church, they would be like babies’ plays on a larger scale, or like plays on the stage.

[3] Nevertheless all these rituals derived their origin from the most ancient times, when rituals were holy from their representing holy things, and from correspondence with the holy things in heaven and thence in the church. Moreover, at the present day they are regarded as venerable, not because it is known what they represent, or to what they correspond, but by an interpretation as of emblems that are in use. But if it were known what each of these things represents, and to what holy thing it corresponds—the crown, the oil, the horn, the scepter, the sword, the keys, riding upon a white horse, and eating while nobles are serving-men would think of them with much more reverence. But this they do not know, and wonderful to say, do not desire to know, to such a degree have the representatives and significatives which are in such things and everywhere in the Word been at the present day destroyed in the minds of men.

[4] That a “drink-offering” signifies the good of truth, or spiritual good, may be seen from the sacrifices in which it was employed. Sacrifices were made from the herd or from the flock, and were representative of the internal worship of the the Lord, (n. 922, 923, 1823, 2180, 2805, 2807, 2830, 3519). To these were added the meat-offering and the drink-offering. The meat-offering, which consisted of fine flour mingled with oil, signified celestial good, or what is the same, the good of love, “oil” signifying love to the Lord, and “fine flour” charity toward the neighbor. But the drink-offering, which consisted of wine, signified spiritual good, or what is the same, the good of faith. Both together therefore (namely, the meat-offering and the drink-offering) signified the same things as the bread and wine in the Holy Supper.

[5] That these were added to the burnt-offerings and sacrifices is evident in Moses:

Thou shalt offer two lambs of the first year day by day continually; the one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer between the evenings; and a tenth of fine flour mingled with beaten oil, a fourth of a hin, and drink offering of the fourth of a hin of wine for the first lamb; and so also for the second lamb (Exodus 29:38-41).

In the day when ye wave the sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest, ye shall offer a lamb without blemish of the first year, for a burnt-offering unto Jehovah, the meat-offering whereof shall be two tenths of fine flour mingled with oil, and the drink offering whereof shall be of wine, the fourth of a hin (Leviticus 23:12-13, 18).

On the day when the days of his Naziriteship are fulfilled, he shall offer his gift unto Jehovah (sacrifices), and a basket of unleavened things of fine flour, cakes mingled with oil, with unleavened wafers anointed with oil, with their meat-offering and their drink-offerings (Numbers 6:13-15, 17).

Upon the burnt-offering they shall offer a meat-offering of a tenth of fine flour mingled with the fourth of a hin of oil; and wine for the drink offering, the fourth of a hin, in one manner for the burnt-offering of a ram, and in another manner for that of an ox (Numbers 15:3-5, 11).

With the burnt-offering of the daily sacrifice thou shalt offer a drink-offering, the fourth of a hin for a lamb; in the holy place shalt thou pour out a drink-offering of wine unto Jehovah (Numbers 28:6-7).

Moreover concerning the meat-offerings and drink-offerings in the sacrifices of various kinds, see Numbers 28:7-31 29:1-40.

[6] That the meat-offering and the drink-offering had this signification may be seen from the fact that love and faith effect everything of worship; and it may be seen above that the bread (which here is of fine flour mingled with oil) and the wine in the Holy Supper signify love and faith, thus everything of worship (n. 1798, 2165, 2177, 2187, 2343, 2359, 3464, 3735, 3813, 4211, 4217).

[7] But when the people fell away from the genuine representative of the worship of the Lord, and turned away to other gods and poured out drink-offerings to them, then by the drink-offerings were signified things which are opposite to charity and faith, namely, the evils and falsities of the love of the world, as in Isaiah:

Ye did become heated with gods under every green tree, thou hast also poured out to them a drink-offering, thou hast offered a meat-offering (Isaiah 57:5-6);

“to become heated with gods” denotes the concupiscences of falsity (that “gods” denote falsities, n. 4402, 4544); “under every green tree” denotes from the belief of all falsities (n. 2722, 4552); “to pour out to them a drink-offering and offer a meat-offering” denotes the worship of them. Again:

Ye that forsake Jehovah, that forget the mountain of My holiness, that prepare a table for Gad, and fill a drink-offering to Meni (Isaiah 65:11).

In Jeremiah:

The sons gather wood, and the fathers kindle a fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes to the queen of the heavens, and to pour out a drink-offering to other gods (Jeremiah 7:18).

[8] Again:

Doing we will do every word that is gone forth out of our mouth, to burn incense to the queen of the heavens, and to pour out drink-offerings to her as we and our fathers have done, and our princes in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 44:17-19);

“the queen of the heavens” denotes all falsities, for in the genuine sense the “armies of the heavens” are truths, but in the opposite sense falsities, and in like manner the “king and queen;” thus the “queen” denotes all of them, and “to pour drink-offerings to her” is to worship.

[9] Again:

The Chaldeans shall burn the city, and the houses upon whose roofs they have offered incense to Baal, and have poured out drink-offerings to other gods (Jeremiah 32:29);

“the Chaldeans” denote those who are in worship in which there is falsity; “to burn the city” denotes to destroy and vastate those who are in doctrinal things of what is false; “to offer incense to Baal upon the roofs of the houses” denotes the worship of what is evil; “to pour out drink-offerings to other gods” denotes the worship of what is false.

[10] In Hosea:

They shall not dwell in Jehovah’s land, and Ephraim shall return into Egypt, and they shall eat what is unclean in Assyria; they shall not pour out wine to Jehovah (Hos. 9:3-4);

“not to dwell in Jehovah’s land” denotes not to be in the good of love; “Ephraim shall return into Egypt” denotes that the intellectual of the church will become mere knowledge and sensuous; “they shall eat what is unclean in Assyria” denotes impure and profane things from reasoning; “they shall not pour out wine to Jehovah” denotes no worship from truth.

[11] In Moses:

It shall be said, Where are their gods, the rock in which they trusted, that did eat the fat of the sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offering? Let them arise and help them (Deuteronomy 33:37-38 [NCBSW: 32:37-38]);

“gods,” as above, denote falsities; “that did eat the fat of the sacrifices” denotes that they destroyed the good of worship; “that drank the wine of their drink-offering” denotes that they destroyed the truth of worship. Drink-offerings are also predicated of blood, in David:

They shall multiply their griefs, they have hastened to another, lest I pour out their drink-offerings of blood, and lest I take up their names upon my lips (Psalms 16:4);

and by these words are signified the profanations of truth; for in this sense “blood” denotes violence offered to charity (n. 374, 1005), and profanation (n. 1003).

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.