10. The twenty-first chapter in the book of Revelation describes the holy Jerusalem in this way, that it had in it a light “like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, bright as crystal;” that it had “a great and high wall, and twelve gates, and over the gates twelve angels, with names written on them...of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel;” that it had a wall of “a hundred and forty-four cubits, the measure of a man, that is, of an angel;” that the construction of its wall was of jasper, and its foundations of all kinds of precious stones — jasper, sapphire, chalcedony, emerald, sardonyx, sardius, chrysolite, beryl, topaz, chrysoprase, jacinth, and amethyst; that “the twelve gates were twelve pearls;” that the city was “pure gold, like transparent glass;” and that it was square, “its length, breadth, and height...equal, ” measuring “twelve thousand furlongs.” And so on.

All of these particulars must be understood spiritually, as can be seen from the fact that the holy Jerusalem symbolizes a new church to be established by the Lord, as we showed in The Doctrine of the New Jerusalem Regarding the Lord 62-65. And because Jerusalem in this description symbolizes a church, it follows that everything said about it as a city — about its gates, its wall, the foundations of the wall, and about their measurements — contains a spiritual meaning. For matters having to do with the church are spiritual.

[2] We have explained the symbolic meanings of each of these particulars in The New Jerusalem and its Heavenly Doctrine (London, 1758), no. 1. We therefore forgo any further explanation of them here. It is enough for it to be known from that book that there is a spiritual meaning present in each particular of the city’s description, like a soul in its body. Also, that apart from that meaning, nothing relating to the church would be understood in the depictions there, as that the city was of pure gold, with its gates of pearls, its wall of jasper, and the foundations of its wall of precious stones; that the wall was of a hundred and forty-four cubits, the measure of a man, that is, of an angel; that the city itself was twelve thousand furlongs long, wide, and high; and so on.

Someone who has a knowledge of correspondences and knows from it the spiritual sense, understands the meanings of these things — as that the wall and its foundations symbolize doctrine drawn from the Word’s literal sense, and that the numbers 12,144, and 12,000 have similar symbolic meanings, namely all the truths and goods of the church in their entirety.

115. However, because there are some people who assert and have confirmed in themselves that people could have known of the existence of God without the Word, and also of heaven and hell, as well as something of whatever else the Word teaches, and because they consequently weaken the authority and sanctity of the Word, if not by what they say, still at heart, therefore we cannot deal with them from the Word, but in accord with their rational sight. For they do not believe in the Word, but in themselves.

Inquire in accord with your rational sight and you will find that everyone has in him two faculties of life, called his intellect and his will. You will also find that the intellect is subject to the will, and not the will to the intellect. For the intellect only informs and shows the way.

Inquire further and you will find that a person’s will is his native self, that regarded in itself it is nothing but evil, and that it produces falsity in the intellect.

[2] When you discover this, you will see that of himself a person is unwilling to comprehend anything that does not accord with the native character of his will, and that it is impossible for him to do so unless he has some other impetus that causes him to see it.

Prompted by the native character of his will, a person is unwilling to comprehend anything that does not have to do with himself and the world. Anything higher than that is for him shrouded in darkness. So, for example, when he sees the sun, the moon and the stars, if by chance he were to think about their origin, he would be unable to think other than that they came into being by themselves. Could he possibly think more deeply than many of the learned in the world, who, even though they know from the Word of the creation of everything by God, still ascribe it to nature? What then would these same people have thought if they had known nothing from the Word?

[3] Do you suppose that ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and others who wrote about the immortality of the soul arrived at this in the first place on their own? They did not. Rather they learned it from others by its being handed down from people who first knew about it from the Ancient Word.

Writers of natural theology do not derive anything of the kind on their own, either, but only confirm with rational arguments what they know from the church where the Word is found. There may even be some among them who confirm these things and yet do not believe them.