is not denied that they are organized even to each single particle in them, how can it be said that the two receptacles of love and wisdom, called will and understanding, are not organic forms?  How can love and wisdom, which are life from the Lord, act upon what is not a subject, or upon what has no substantial existence?  Without organic forms, how can thought inhere; and from thought inherent in nothing can one speak?  Is not the brain, where thought comes forth, complete and organized in every part?  The organic forms themselves are there visible even to the naked eye; and the receptacles of the will and understanding, in their first principles, are plainly to be seen in the cortical substance, where they are perceptible as minute glands (On which see above, n. 366).  Do not, I pray, think of these things from an idea of vacuum.  Vacuum is nothing, and in nothing nothing takes place, and from nothing nothing comes forth.  (On the idea of vacuum, see above, n. 82.)

374. (2) There is a correspondence of the will and understanding with the heart and lungs, consequently a correspondence of all things of the mind with all things of the body.  This is new:  it has hitherto been unknown because it has not been known what the spiritual is, and how it differs from the natural; therefore it has not been known what correspondence is; for there is a correspondence between things spiritual and things natural, and by means of correspondence they are conjoined.  It is said that heretofore there has been no knowledge of what the spiritual is, or of what its correspondence with the natural is and therefore what correspondence is; yet these might have been known.  Who does not know that affection and thought are spiritual, therefore that all things of affection and thought are spiritual?  Who does not know that action and speech are natural, therefore that all things of action and speech are natural:  who does not know that affection and thought, which are spiritual, cause man to act and to speak?  From this who cannot see what correspondence is between things spiritual and things natural?  Does not thought make the tongue speak, and affection together with thought make the body act?  There are two distinct things:  I can think without speaking, and I can will without acting; and the body, it is known, neither thinks nor wills, but thought falls into speech, and will descends into action.  Does not affection also beam forth from the face, and there exhibit a type of itself?  This everyone knows.  Is not affection, regarded in itself, spiritual, and the change of countenance, called the expression, natural?  From this who might not conclude that there is correspondence; and further, a correspondence of all things of the mind with all things of the body; and since all things of the mind have relation to affection and thought, or what is the same, to the will and understanding, and all things of the body to the heart and lungs, — that there is a correspondence of the will