[2] The reason why the firstborn who was given the name Manasseh means spiritual good within the natural, or a new area of will there, is that good is in actual fact the firstborn in the Church. That is, with someone who is in the process of becoming a Church, truth is not the firstborn, though it appears to be so, see 352, 367, 2435, 3325, 3494, 4925, 4926, 4928, 4930. The same may also be recognized from the consideration that a person's will takes precedence over his understanding; for the desires in a person's will are the primary constituents of his life, while the ideas in his understanding are secondary to them; and he acts in accordance with the desires of his will. What goes forth from the will is called good in the case of those who through regeneration have received from the Lord a new will; but it is called evil in the case of those who have had no wish to receive such. What goes forth from the understanding however is called truth in the case of the regenerate but falsity in the case of the unregenerate. But because no knowledge of a person's will is possible except through his understanding - for the understanding is the outward form that the will possesses or the outward form taken by the will which enables it to be known - people therefore imagine that truth which goes forth from the understanding is the firstborn. But this is nothing else than the appearance, for the reason that has been stated.

[3] This explains the controversy that existed in former times over whether the truth which is the essence of faith was the firstborn of the Church or whether good which is the essence of charity was such. Those who based their conclusions on the appearance said that truth was the firstborn, whereas those who did not base theirs on the appearance acknowledged that good was. This also explains why at the present day people make faith the primary and absolutely essential constituent of the Church, but charity the secondary and non-essential element. But by supposing that faith alone is what saves a person they have sunk into far deeper error than the ancients. (In the Church faith is used to mean all the truth of doctrine, while charity is used to mean all the good of life.) They do, it is true, call charity and the works of charity the fruits of faith. Yet does anyone believe that those fruits make any contribution to salvation when the belief exists that someone can be saved by faith in the final hour of his life, no matter what kind of life he led before then? More than this, does anyone believe that those fruits contribute in any way to salvation when people use doctrine to set faith apart from works that are the product of charity, saying that faith alone saves without good works, or that works which are matters of life contribute nothing to salvation? Dear, dear! What kind of faith is that, and what kind of Church is it when people cherish faith that is dead and reject faith that is living? For faith without charity is like a body without a soul. But a body without a soul is removed from sight and put away because it stinks, as everyone knows; and in the next life faith without charity is just like this. All who possessed faith so-called which was devoid of charity are in hell; but all who had charity are in heaven. For everyone's life remains with him, whereas doctrine does so only insofar as it draws on that life.

[4] It is less easy to show from other places in the Word that 'Manasseh' means a new area of will within the natural - or what amounts to the same, spiritual good there - than it is to show that 'Ephraim' means a new area of understanding within the natural, or spiritual truth there. Even so, inferences can be drawn regarding the meaning of 'Manasseh' from what is said about 'Ephraim', because in the Word when two are mentioned together in the way these are, one means good, the other truth. Therefore Manasseh's meaning - spiritual good within the natural, which is the essence of the new will there - will be seen in what follows shortly where Ephraim is the subject.