It is well known that there are two factors which make a person's life, the will and the intellect, that all his actions are the result of his will and his intellect, and that without their agency a person could neither act nor speak except mechanically. From this is it plain that a person's nature is determined by the nature of his will and his intellect; the essential nature of his actions is determined by the affection of the will which gives rise to them; the nature of a person's conversation is determined by the intellectual thinking that gives rise to it. It is therefore possible for a number of people to act and talk alike, and yet in fact they act and talk differently, in one case due to wrong willing and thinking, in another due to right willing and right thinking.

[2] These facts establish what is meant by the actions or deeds according to which each individual will be judged, namely, the will and the intellect, and in consequence evil deeds mean the deeds of a wicked will, whatever they look like outwardly. Also good deeds means the deeds of a good will, even though outwardly they look like the deeds of a wicked person. Everything done by a person's inner will is done of set purpose, since the will sets before itself as an aim what in intends to do. Everything done by the intellect is done by assent, since the intellect assents to it. These facts can establish that everyone has evil or good imputed to him according to the nature of his will shown in his actions and the nature of his intellect with regard to them.

[3] I can support this statement by the following. In the spiritual world I have met many people whose life in the natural world was no different from others'; they wore fine clothes, dined elegantly, engaged in business deals like other people to make profits, went to the theatre, joked about love affairs as if lusting for them, and did other things of the same sort. Yet the angels held some of them guilty of sinful evils, and to others they did not impute these actions as evils, declaring one group innocent, and the other guilty. When they were asked why, when both groups had done much the same, they replied that what they looked for in all cases was the aim, intention or end in view, and they distinguished cases on this basis, so that those who were excused or condemned by their end in view, they themselves excused or condemned, since all in heaven have good as their end in view, all in hell evil.