natural intelligence for book-learning, to turn a symbol of fellowship into a means of grace.

66

"in

But is it "mystics" alone, whatever that word may mean, who more or less consciously live, move, and have their being the realm of figure and metaphor"?

Nor am I inclined to think that metaphor "illustrates and illuminates a truth too profound for literal or precise exhibition in human language." But I think both metaphor and idiom give an attractiveness to the letter of Scripture, as also of every-day speech, and thus make it far pleasanter to read than it otherwise would be, especially by the unregenerate; and far less prolix.

Grammarians, whose proper place is the servants' hall, have been put into the drawing-room.

The case of Lazarus (John xi.) and that of Jairus' daughter are very instructive. In the latter case, our Lord would not admit of the word "death"; in the former, it had to be dragged out of Him, because, as the reader explains, He was about to restore him to life.

I speak with all humility and subject to correction if wrong, but it seems to me that our Lord was not only using the figure of prolepsis or anticipation, but also emphasizing the importance of that figure so common amongst the Hebrews and other ancient

nations.

Had our learned theologians understood this figure better, they would not have made death mean a form of life, or a type of it, nor would they have made people dead who had never lived; for death is the ending of life, not its mere absence. In this connection, I consider (see p. 109) that oi veкpoi means doomed to die, not spiritually dead. I think also, in the case of the man who wished to bury his father, that he meant "Let me stay (like Abram) with my father till he dies." Had his father been actually dead, he would have been in the house, arranging the funeral. Our Lord's words might well mean, Let those doomed to die bury their dead -or doomed to die. As in the late war, there was much to do and little time to do it in.

There is another important figure in both Old and New Testaments, whose name I do not know, viz., the word describing the effect is attached to the word describing the cause; e.g., "eternal redemption " = redemption with eternal results, "eternal destruction "

=

destruction with eternal results, and "to a perpetual end" more destruction. (See Ps. ix. 6.)

= no

I could say much more on this subject, but time does not permit. Mr. THEODORE ROBERTS differed from Dr. Geden's statement on p. 104 that the Evangelist rarely went beyond the Jews in his vision and thought, instancing the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world, “God so loved the world," and " The Light of the World.”

He thought the Lecturer might have said more about the use of water as a figure, pointing out that the authoritative commentary on the blood and water flowing from the side of the dead Saviour in 1 John v. showed that the incident was figurative of the two aspects of the death of Christ, viz., expiatory towards God and of cleansing towards man. The Epistle doubtless referred to the present condition of Resurrection which our Lord had reached through His death. He believed the water in John iii. 5 referred to cleansing and in iv. 14 to satisfying, which are the two main uses we have for water.

Mr. ROUSE said: With most of the utterances of this instructive paper I for one am in hearty sympathy and accord, even where it would supersede our time-honoured translation "born again" by "born from above." And yet I find room for criticism in certain features and phrases of the paper. The closing words hint at a chronological order in John's Gospel, whereas it is the one Gospel by which the length of Christ's ministry is determined, and an opinion expressed on p. 107 would actually sweep aside one of the chief links of that determination. When our Saviour, after His interview with the woman by the well of Sychar, said to His disciples, "Say not ye there are yet four months and then cometh harvest; behold I say unto you, Look upon the fields, for they are white already to the harvest," He was, after His favourite custom, comparing a natural fact with a spiritual one, and in this case drawing a contrast as He had just drawn between material water and spiritual water, and a little later in the record drawn between natural bread and spiritual bread. Then where would have been the contrast, if the natural harvest had not been four months away ?

Mr. W. HOSTE, referring to the Professor's quotation of John iii. 12," If I have spoken to you of the earthly things and ye believe not, how will ye believe if I speak to you of the heavenly things?"

66

66

new birth".

questioned whether "the earthly things" could be interpreted as referring to "earthly birth" or the action of the literal "wind." How could it be said that Nicodemus or others believed not " such things. Nobody then or now throws doubt on " natural birth ” or the action of the "wind." What, then, can "earthly things refer to? Some have suggested that the contrast lies between " the new birth" and the possession of eternal life"; but this seems even less satisfactory, for how can -more properly rendered, as has been pointed out, "birth from above"-be correctly described as an an "earthly thing"? Nicodemus and his fellow-countrymen had seen the "powers of the Kingdom," the miracles which Jesus did, but instead of recognising the King, they saw in Him at best a Teacher come from God" to whom they would have yielded the professor's chair, while refusing him the kingly throne.

This leads our Lord to emphasize the need of “the birth from above" in order to see that which was even then being announced by Himself and John—a literal kingdom for Israel. This kingdom, in its centre and scope, was an "earthly thing." Israel refused their King, and the setting up of this form of the kingdom was necessarily postponed to a future day. But was there then to be no kingdom in the absence of the King? Yes, this is the mystery of the kingdom. A spiritual kingdom was to be set up in the hearts of His believing people" righteousness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost." These are, I would submit, the "heavenly things" the Lord referred to, which required even more faith to grasp than the earthly kingdom foretold by the prophets.

Mr. Hoste also asked how Professor Geden intended the phrase on p. 109 to be understood: The New Testament knows nothing of a re-creation of physical existence." Would not such a phrase, as it stands, seem to deny any literal bodily resurrection? though the words a few lines down, There will be no tenant left of an earthly tomb," show this is not the Professor's thought.

66

Dr. A. WITHERS GREEN said: If you look up over the west entrance to St. Paul's Cathedral you will see four groups of figures, one on each side of the north and south bell towers. Beginning from the north you have the Apostle Matthew with a man child, then St. Mark with a lion's head and neck at his side. Passing over the

Apostles Peter, Paul and James, you come to the south tower, where there is St. Luke with an ox, and lastly the Apostle John with an eagle.

I suppose these figures correspond to the man, lion, calf and eagle of Rev. iv. 7, 8, and Ezek. i. 10. I cannot resist adding that St. Peter has by his side the cock that crowed twice, perhaps also pointing to the impetuous, always to the front, somewhat boasting, crowing character of the genuine Apostle.

If parents and teachers would show these details to the children, some interest in Divine realities might be assured, but millions, year in and out, pass St. Paul's Cathedral and do not observe its fascinating imagery.

We know that St. John's Gospel has been called the Evangel of the Glory because the early chapters begin with telling us of heavenly things, and the line of the Shekinah runs on, steadily expanding wider at the closing chapters promising us the eternal dwelling places of the Father's house.

I do not read of any mention of the eagle in St. John's Gospel. His loving disposition might have qualified him more for the symbol of a dove, though naturally as Boanerges he was associated with the eagle's home among the thunder clouds.

In the Old Testament we are told of the eagle's way in the air, its mounting up, its high nest, its great wings, its strength and swiftness. I should like to learn more than the above if possible why the eagle is associated with the writer of the fourth Gospel.

Perhaps it is as writer of the Apocalypse, in which we are told that he saw heavenly visions, which no one else ever knew. like the eagle who sees regions and distances which no other created person or animal can attain unto.

Professor H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD felt sure that the audience would not wish to part from the author before according him a very hearty vote of thanks for his able and interesting paper. It had exemplified Bacon's saying that illustrations are "windows which let in the light," so enabling us to see more clearly. It had brought light and warmth to the consideration of an important subject.

They would, he thought, quite agree with the author (see p. 103, the latter paragraph) that the metaphors brought forward in the fourth Gospel are borrowed from human thought and experience to

illustrate in part (although inadequately) Divine relations and character; and (p. 106) the "spiritual content always exceeds and overflows the limitations of the earthly figure."

The statement (p. 100) that "only by way of metaphor can Divine truths be conveyed to the human mind or set forth in human speech may be a clerical error. If not, it stands in need of explanation. The first Bible statement, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," is a Divine statement which does not seem metaphorical.

On p. 106 (line 14 from the bottom) it is affirmed that "the vine cannot and does not live except in the branches." Surely there is some slip " here?

The fact, pointed out in p. 107, that the thought of the writer of the Book of the Revelation is saturated" with the metaphors of the fourth Gospel, is of great value and should be a strong argument in support of the view that both books are written by John the Apostle.

Our earnest conviction and entire concurrence are with the author when, speaking of the term "Logos" as applied to the Lord Jesus Christ (p. 102), he makes the beautiful remark, “If you pour into the term all that you can conceive of majesty and power, you have not equalled the Divine greatness of Him of whom the Apostle thinks and desires to write."

I ask you to carry the vote of thanks by acclamation.

(This was done.)

Chancellor J. J. LIAS writes as follows:

Having been lately engaged in a careful study of St. John's First Epistle, may I be forgiven if I venture to make some remarks on to-day's paper?

Page 99.-I fully agree with the author's remarks on the works attributed to the Apostle St. John.

Page100.-I as fully respond to the comments on the absurdity that any Oriental fancied that One so immeasurably great as our Blessed Lord Himself must be regarded as refusing the use of the "picturesque and figurative speech of His country "; I will not add of His time," for from the time of Moses to the present day the Oriental uses expressions of hyperbole which are universally attributed to men of his race and region.