Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

JESUS AND JEHOVAH THE SAME.

N our last chapter we endeavoured to show in what manner the Incarnation availed to benefit the fallen and perishing race of men. Firstly, it afforded a manifestation of God to the world, which, by long persistence in evil, had lost all just perception of the Divine character and requirements. Secondly, it supplied to all generations of our race a perfect Pattern for their imitation, and a supreme Standard for their aspiration. Thirdly, and chiefly, it enabled Jehovah to break the spiritual bonds which were holding mankind in slavery, and thus to restore to them their liberty of will and reason, and their consequent capacity for ultimate regeneration and salvation. At the darkest period of history, when human evil and folly seemed to imperil the beneficent designs of the Divine Providence in creation, Jehovah the Creator interposed for the rescue of His lost and strayed flock, and, as the Creed asserts, became also our Redeemer.

For He who thus manifested the Word and achieved redemption was identical with Jehovah. We have already proved that prophecy foretold this identity: * we must now see the complementary evidence of the New Testament as to its actual fulfilment.

What, then, can be more emphatic than the testimony of Zacharias, uttered in anticipation of the Saviour's birth? "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited and redeemed His people" (Luke i. 68). Or consider His further declaration, "The Dayspring from on high hath visited us" (ver. 78). The Dayspring is the sun, the source of all diurnal light and heat. Who, then, can be thus designated save the One Supreme Infinite Being of whom the Psalmist had written, "Jehovah God is a Sun and Shield"? (Ps. lxxxiv. 11.) Indeed, connecting the two passages together, they mutually confirm and illustrate each other. For in the Person of Jesus, the Divine Sun, the Dayspring from on high hath indeed visited us; not in the intolerable splendours of unveiled Deity, which we could never have endured, and the revelation of which would have at once annihilated our feeble capacities; but graciously accommodated to our powers and necessities, by being manifested in a Humanity like our own, which thus constituted Him both a Sun and a Shield. express and forcible is the assertion of St. Matthew that Isaiah's prophecy (vii. 14) was accomplished in the birth of the Son of Mary: "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call His Name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matt. i. 22, 23). Thus was born the Holy Thing called the Son of God (Luke i. 35); which was indeed "God with us," because therein the Lord God, the Dayspring from on high, the infinite eternal Jehovah, did actually visit His people. Is it objected, however, as involving somewhat of paradox, that our Father in the heavens should thus manifest His presence in the person of a human form and nature * See Morning Light, No. 9, p. 83.

Equally

which was His own Son? This, too, was fully anticipated in prophecy: "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His Name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (Isa. ix. 6).

name:

Now the more minutely the life of Jesus is investigated, the more conclusively is this fact of His identity with Jehovah established. It is taught in His very "Thou shalt call His Name JESUS, for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt. i. 21). Whose people? Of whom except the Creator and Supreme Ruler of all could such language be employed without irreverence? But compare Gospel with Prophecy, and again we find a precise harmony, and an irrefragable confirmation of the truth that Jesus and Jehovah are indeed the same. For the Old Testament declares Jehovah to be the only Saviour: "I, even I, am Jehovah; and beside Me there is no Saviour" (Isa. xliii. II). "There is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Saviour: there is none beside Me. Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else” (Isa. xlv. 21, 22). "All flesh shall know that I Jehovah am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob" (Isa. xlix. 26). "Yet I am Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no God but Me: for there is no Saviour beside Me" (Hos. xiii. 4). Yet Jesus, who, as just seen, received His name because He should save His people from their sins (Matt. i. 21), is also described, and with equal emphasis, as the only Saviour. For Peter, "filled with the Holy Ghost," after attributing to "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" the miraculous cure of the impotent man who sat begging at the Beautiful gate of the Temple, explicitly added, "Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved" (Acts iv. 12). Surely it is impossible that any inference can be more imperative. In the Old Testament Jehovah declares Himself the only Saviour. The New Testament says that the Child who was "God with us," received the name Jesus because He was the Saviour, and adds, with absolute positiveness, "Neither is there salvation in any other." Either, therefore, we must reject the Gospel testimony as unauthorized—and, if so, what terms could adequately characterize the depth of its profanity?—or we must gratefully acknowledge that the Saviour Jesus is indeed Jehovah, manifest in the flesh.

Nor is the title of Saviour the only distinctly Divine appellation which is either applied to Jesus by inspired writers or claimed by His own assertion. Perhaps the grandest, most obviously incommunicable of all the styles of Deity is that by which God revealed Himself to Moses at the bush: "Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is His Name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I Am that I Am and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you" (Ex. iii. 13, 14). This sublime title plainly indicates the possession of absolute underived life, such as can only appertain to the Infinite First Cause of all. Yet, standing amidst the hostile Jews, who boasted to Him of their father Abraham, Jesus calmly asserted, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am" (John viii. 58). Just previously He had challenged their severest censure in the words, "Which of you convinceth Me of sin?" (ver. 46.) If however, He was less than God, is it possible to regard His assumption of this peculiarly

MORNING LIGHT.

Divine style otherwise than as a most hideous blasphemy? I shudder merely to suggest such a deduction, but is it not, in truth, the only alternative to a frank recognition of the Saviour as indeed the manifested I Am? Jehovah revealed in the Humanity, that He might therein visit and redeem His people.

The case is very similar with the comprehensive and impressive title, The First and the Last. This is emphatically claimed by Jehovah: "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I Jehovah, the First, and with the Last; I am He" (Isa. xli. 4). "Thus saith Jehovah the King of Israel, and his Redeemer Jehovah of Hosts; I am the First, and I am the Last; and beside Me there is no God" (Isa. xliv. 6). "Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and Israel, My called; I am He, I am the First, I also am the Last" (Isa. xlviii. 12). Yet with equal explicitness the same name is applied to the Lord Jesus Christ, who in His risen glory revealed Himself thereby to the beloved disciple John in Patmos: "And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the First and the Last: I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore" (Rev. i. 17, 18). the Incarnation Jehovah had not fully assumed this Indeed, prior to character, or had only possessed it potentially or in first. principles, and not, as afterwards, in actual ultimated reality. By clothing Himself in our nature, however, burdened as it was with the inherent tendencies of the race of Israel, Judah, and David, He had indeed become the Last, stooping to humanity at its lowest, that He might thus reach to save and rescue all.

Again: in language which, after the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments, should be known and loved by every little child, and treasured throughout life and to extremest age, David had gratefully acknowledged, "Jehovah is my Shepherd, I shall not want" (Ps. xxiii. 1); and in reference to the Incarnation, the chief evangelistic prophet had also declared, "Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and His arm shall rule for Him behold, His reward is with Him, and His work before Him. He shall feed His flock like a shepherd: He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young" (Isa. xl. 10, 11). Compare with these utterances the claim of Jesus to the same character: "I am the Good Shepherd: the Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep. I am the Good Shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine" (John x. 11, 14). Surely these professions amount to an assertion of identity with Him of whom the Psalmist and prophet had spoken!-especially when the Saviour's language is viewed in connection with another declaration, with which it may at first seem to have no affinity. when a young man ran to Him with eager inquiry, For once, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" He had pronounced the apparent rebuff, Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but One, that is God" (Matt. xix. 16, 17; Mark x. 17, 18; Luke xviii. 18, 19). His purpose is not to deny either His goodness or His Godhead, but to impress the importance of due care in rightly understanding why we pronounce Him good. And since, after thus teaching that none is good but God, He Himself affirms, "I am the Good Shepherd," no other conclusion is possible, to a believer in the Scriptures, than that He was indeed the Divine Shepherd, Jehovah, who, when all we like sheep had gone astray, and had turned every one to his own way (Isa. liii. 6), came, manifested as the Son of Man, to seek and to save that which was lost (Luke xix. 10).

66

Or consider the witness of John the Baptist, to which our Lord Himself appealed when it was demanded of Him by the chief priests and elders of the people, "By what authority doest Thou these things? and who gave Thee this authority? Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell Me, I in likeThe baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of wise will tell you by what authority I do these things. men?" (Matt. xxi. 23-27; Mark xi. 27-33; Luke xx. 1-8.) A superficial reader might count this reply as rather an evidently the interrogators understood it better, and evasion of the question than a satisfactory rejoinder, but clearly perceived, in the well-known facts connected with the Baptist's office, and with his relations towards the Lord, a sufficient answer to their inquiry. For John's mission had been defined with singular clearness in prophecy: "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a highway for our God" (Isa. xl. 3). "Behold, I will send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, He shall come, saith Jehovah of Hosts" (Mal. iii. 1). And again: "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of Jehovah: and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse" (Mal. iv. 5, 6). Here it was foretold, not only, as in so many other predictions, that Jehovah would Himself come to men, to redeem and save them, but that His appointed herald. And all advent should be preceded by the ministry of a Divinelyappointed herald. And all of these prophecies had been fulfilled by John the Baptist. Before his birth the Angel Gabriel had identified him with the promised harbinger, who should go before the Lord God "in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just" (Luke i. 17); and his father Zacharias had declared him "the prophet of the Highest," who should "go beJohn had claimed for himself the same identity; for fore the face of the Lord to prepare His ways" (ver. 76). when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask, "Who art thou?"-repudiating all personal honour, he said, "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Esaias" (John i. 19-23). Jesus also had recognised the Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Baptist as the promised herald: "This is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send My messenger before Thy face, receive it, this is Elias, who was for to come who shall prepare Thy way before Thee. . . . And if ye will 10, 14). Clearly, therefore, John's errand was to go be(Matt. xi. fore Jehovah, to make ready upon earth the way of the manifested God. To whom, then, did he bear witness day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, as the Being before whom he was thus sent? "The next Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said, After me cometh a Man who is preferred before me; for He was before me" (John i. 29, 30). And when his disciples murmured at the growing influence of the Saviour, which reputation of their own honoured teacher, how magnaniwas rapidly throwing into shade the previous splendid mous and unreserved was the Baptist's testimony! "Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the increase, but I must decrease. Christ, but that I am sent before Him. . . . He must from above is above all; he that is of the earth is He that cometh earthly, and speaketh of the earth; He that cometh from heaven is above all" (John iii. 25-31). Thus the

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Old Testament foretold that Jehovah would send His messenger to prepare His way before Him; the New Testament described John the Baptist as the promised herald; and John bore witness to Jesus as the Being before whom he was sent. What, then, is the inferences but that Jesus is indeed Jehovah manifested in the flesh, "God with us," to save His people from their sins?

Further Jesus claims this identity. "I and My Father are One" (John x. 30). "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip? he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? the words that I speak unto you, I speak not of Myself; but the Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works' (John xiv. 9, 10). The Father dwelt in Jesus as the human soul in the body, and, like the human soul and body, formed but One Person. Therefore, also, after His resurrection the Saviour permitted Thomas to address Him in the words, "My Lord and My God!" (John xx. 28)—which, were He less than Divine, would have been on His part an impious assumption, and on the side of the enthusiastic disciple an act of idolatry. From His own plain assertions, therefore, and from the equally clear evidence of His thus accepting the tribute of human worship, we draw further confirmation of the central truth of Christianity, that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same God.

And lastly, the apostolic writers unanimously affirm this identity. To quote the whole of their testimony, direct and indirect, would involve a transfer to our pages of almost the entire epistles: we must, therefore, rest content with a few of the more unmistakable assertions. Thus Paul says that "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever" (Rom. ix. 5); or as Dean Alford more emphatically renders the passage, "Who is God over all." The same apostle epitomizes the doctrine of the Atonement in the statement "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. v. 19); thus confirming the Lord's own assurance that the Father dwelt in Him (John xiv. 10). Elsewhere he speaks of Jesus as "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: for by Him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him, and for Him: and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist" (Col. i. 15-17). How would it be possible to express more strongly that Jesus is the manifest ed Deity, the visible God in whom dwells the invisible, and thus the Creator and Preserver of all things? Again, and in the same Epistle, "In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power" (ii. 9, 10). If the whole Godhead is bodily present in the Divine Humanity of Jesus, insomuch that we are "complete in Him," clearly no room is left for the thought of any God beside Him or apart from Him; and with another apostle we are compelled-and how gladly!-to ascribe "to the only wise God our Saviour glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever" (Jude 25). Indeed, the last book of the inspired Word continually presents the Lord Jesus Christ as the Object of human and angelic worship. He revealed Himself to John as " Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. i. 8); and to Him, as comprising in His glorious Person both the essential Divinity, described as "Him that sitteth upon the throne," and the Divine Humanity, referred to as "the Lamb that was slain," are rendered "power, and

riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing" (v. 12-14, vii. 9-12).

Thus every portion of the Word concurs, by a perfectly overwhelming weight of testimony, to prove that Jesus Christ is God. If, then, "the Lord our God is One Lord," as affirmed in "the first of all the commandments (Mark xii. 29), and if Jesus Christ is God, inevitably He must be the one only God; according to the express evidence which has been cited, "God with us," Jehovah made manifest in the Humanity, that thereby He might redeem and save the fallen and perishing race of mankind. JOHN PRESLAND.

TIME AND SPACE.

WAS sitting in my study reading when a dear old friend called in to see me as he was passing, and after the customary greetings and some ordinary remarks, inquired, "Well, Henry, are you still a believer and a reader of that mystical writer Swedenborg?"

This friend was an old college acquaintance of mine, and was now a minister in one of what is called the Evangelical Churches.

"Pardon me, my dear Fred," I said, "what do you mean when you say that mystical writer Swedenborg? What do you mean by mystical?”

"What do I mean by mystical?" he replied; "I mean one who speaks or writes about things which people generally do not understand."

"Will you answer me this, my friend? Did the people generally understand the Lord Jesus Christ when He was in the world teaching them?"

"No, they did not," said Fred, "but He taught what we may easily understand and believe."

"Indeed!" I replied, "I thought that the views which were generally entertained among the Evangelical were that Jesus taught certain things which could only be received by faith, not by understanding them. Such as the teaching that He was the eternal Son of God; that God existed in three Persons, and yet there was only one God; that the work of atonement was a mystery; that the resurrection of the body from the grave (or rather from the elements, because dead bodies do not remain in their graves) was also a mystery. It is said that Jesus taught these things. If He did, why do you say that what He taught was easily understood? are they not mystical? And if a teacher such as Swedenborg shows you that Christ's teaching, although it may appear to be a mystery, is not mystical at all, but when properly understood is as clear as the noonday sun, and he does this to the satisfaction of both children and adults, how can you with reason object to him for being mystical?"

"Well, but," said my friend Fred, "Swedenborg says that in heaven there is neither time nor space. What kind of a heaven will that be? Time is duration; space is place. So if in heaven there is neither time nor space, how can beings exist where there is neither duration nor place? If that is not mystical, I do not know what mystical means."

"Stop, my friend, tell me what you mean by duration and place?"

"Duration and place?" said Fred; "they are time and space."

"Yes, but that is but a play upon words; and words, as John Locke says, are often the engines of fraud. Tell me what is your conception of duration and place, or of time and space?"

"Ah!" said Fred, "that will be to branch off into

metaphysics, and these are difficult questions to deal with.'

"It matters little what is the difficulty of the question, I repeat, What is your conception of time and space? When Thomas Carlyle was once stating a certain proposition to his friend Stirling, Stirling said, 'Oh, that is pantheism !' 'Never mind,' said Carlyle, whether it be pantheism or pot-theism, or what name you give it, is it true?' I ask, therefore, again, What is your conception of time and space? Surely, as a reasonable man, and as one who does not like mysticism, you should be able to tell me what they are, when you object to Swedenborg for saying that they do not exist in heaven? You seem to say, if Swedenborg had taught that heaven was in time and space he would be more intelligible. But would he be so? would he not be less intelligible; and therefore, according to your meaning, more mystical? I think he would; from this consideration, that he would be placing heaven in some of the planets in the material universe. Now the Bible and common sense inform us, that if we were in any of the planets which move in the distant realms of space we should be no nearer to heaven than we are in our own planet.

"Our Lord said, 'It is not lo here, or lo there, but behold, the kingdom of God (or of heaven) is within you.' Heaven is not to be found in place or in space, but heaven is an inner state of the soul, and by saying, 'Surely it must also be in time and space,' no clearer or more satisfactory idea is conveyed of where or what heaven is.

"Let us see what our conceptions are of time and space, and we shall then be able to see the truth of this. I think, Fred, you are wrong, or at least very mystical, in saying that time is duration. When I analyze my conception of time I find it to be nothing else than a measurement of duration, not duration itself. This measurement is based on the rotation of the earth round its own axis and around the sun. By its motion round its own axis it causes what we call a day. So we divide that day or that movement into parts, which we call hours and minutes, and when the rotation of the earth has completed its circle we call that movement a day.

66 "It is the same with its annual motion. When the earth has completed its circuit round the sun we call that a year, and we measure that movement by days, weeks, and months. This is my conception of time it is not a conception of duration, but of the measurement of duration, and this measurement is based on external movement or objective motion-the motion of the earth; now it is very evident that if the earth did not move with a double motion round the sun we should have nothing of an external kind by which to measure existence or duration. We should therefore have to fall back upon our inward states, and measure duration or existence by the motion or changes which take place there. So when Swedenborg says that in heaven there is no time, all that he means to teach is, not that there is no existence or duration, but that the measurement of existence or duration is not based upon the rotation of that world around the sun, but on internal state or inward motion, because the scenes and objects of the spiritual world are formed in and through the soul. Consequently all the movements in that state of existence are in reality internal, not external. The measurements of existence or duration are not based upon external movement in the spiritual world, but upon internal movements of the spirit. This is the simple reason why Swedenborg wisely says that in the spiritual world there is no time. We can prove the truth of this from experience; for we frequently measure duration or existence, not by the

earth's motion, nor by the clock, but by our inward states. An event appears a long way off or very near just in proportion as we are intensely desiring it or not desiring it. When we are in either of these conditions we measure existence by inward state, and not by time, for time is objectively the same in both instances."

"Well," said Fred, "that appears to be very clear and very true with regard to time; but what about space? You will not be able to make such a satisfactory explanation of Swedenborg's statement that in heaven there is no space as you have done regarding time, because his statement respecting there being no space in heaven is equal to saying that heaven is in no place; if it is in no place it is nowhere; and if it is nowhere, then heaven is a dream and a delusion.”

"Not so fast, if you please, my dear friend. Let us remember Locke's advice; take care that we are not led into errors by the use of words without considering their proper meaning. What is your conception of space?"

My friend Fred at this question looked rather puzzled, and said in reply,

"Oh, it is an easy thing to put difficult questions to me on such subjects. But I should like to hear you answer the question which I now put as an objection to Swedenborg's mysticism. I may not be able to tell you what space is; but I know it exists, and that it is a necessary condition of all existence."

"Then, my friend, if you are so impatient when I put a question to you as to what your conception of space is, because from its nature it is difficult to answer, and when you put the question so confidently, 'How can there be a heaven without space,' and characterize as mystical Swedenborg's saying that in heaven there is no space,' surely you must be able to tell me clearly what this is which you call space, and which you say you know exists, and must exist, as a condition of all existence. If you know it exists, and that it must exist as a condition of all existence, surely you must know what it is and be able to answer my question easily. Although how space exists, and is at the same time a condition of all existence, I must confess I do not understand. Surely, Fred, that statement of yours is mystical. Is an existence and a condition of existence one and the same thing? Let us see I set this ball in motion; the ball is a body; it is an existence, and its condition is that of motion. Are the motion and the ball existences precisely in the same sense? No, they cannot be; the motion is dependent on the ball for its existence; in fact, although the motion may be said to exist, it does not exist as an entity at all. It is an existence in relation; the ball is in motion, and when the ball is at rest motion ceases to exist. It is precisely analogous with space; space is a condition of body; it is not a body or an existence itself. It exists in relation to a body at rest; it is a condition of existence, but not a necessary condition, as we shall presently see.

"What are the beginnings of our conceptions of space? Do they not arise from the distance which we see between bodies at rest and which we can measure? And do we not call the measurement of this distance space?"

"This," said Fred, " may be true, but what does the body which is at rest exist in ?"

"Nothing, my dear fellow; if there was something in which the body existed it would fill the place of that body, and therefore there would be no room for it to exist in. When you measure the space in which a body is at rest all that you are in reality doing is measuring the extension of the body. Now, let us suppose a state of a body or an existence in which there was no rest, but all was in sympathy and rapid activity, somewhat like elec

tricity or lightning. It has been shown by scientific men that the spark of electricity which slumbers in the dewdrop exists in unity, without distance, with the electric spark which trembles in the cloud, and their sympathies have only to be awakened in order that they may be one or present with each other. You know that space or distance has been nearly annihilated by the telegraph.

"A body in a state of rest we fix upon as a given point, and we call that point place. We say, for instance, that Sweden and Norway are in the north of Europe; but where is the north of Europe as a real existence? East, west, north, and south are merely relations; they are not existences; they are conditions of existence. So, alter the conditions of existence, and space or distance would vanish. We talk of up or down, but where is up or down? Neither in themselves exist. They are merely relations, and if the relations be altered up may become down and down up.

"When we read, therefore, in Swedenborg that in heaven there is no space, and when we say heaven must be a place, that is, it must be in space, and ask where is it, we ought to remember that the difficulty does not lie in answering the question. The whole difficulty lies in putting it. We imagine that we are putting a question, but in reality we are saying nothing unless we mean by it a relation. And if we mean that space and place are conditions of existence we do very well; but if we ask the question where is this space or place as entities, we are asking not for an existence, but for that which does not exist. You might as well ask where is to-morrow or where is yesterday. You are not putting a question at all. Space, like time, is not an absolute existence, it is only a condition of existence. So the conditions in heaven not being that of fixed bodies, or bodies at rest, there cannot be in it space, place, or distance such as we have in the natural world. To put this form of words therefore, Where is heaven? that is, What place is it? there being no fixed points arising from the relation of bodies at rest, the question cannot be answered, simply because such a question cannot be put. Heaven can only exist in human souls. It is an internal state of the soul existing where the Spirit of God exists. Heaven exists because God exists and human souls exist. Its objective existence arises as a relation flowing out of the human spirit and of God. God does not exist in time or space, yet He is everywhere present. The human spirit exists in God only; it is not ubiquitous. To say, therefore, that it is more intelligible to declare that heaven exists in place or space is a mistake, which arises from the want of reflection, as space is not a real existence, but only a relation. No doubt in heaven there are appearances of both time and space, but they are not fixed quantities, or relations of bodies at rest as they are here. Hence Swedenborg says that in heaven there is neither time nor space."

My friend Fred thoughtfully said, "Well, I have not thought of such things before, but I think I am begining to see that time and space must be as you say, and that Swedenborg is a wiser and clearer writer than I have hitherto considered him.” H. CAMERON. BLACKBURN.

CLEANSING BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS
CHRIST.

HE old proverb, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," contains a good deal of truth. Not that there is danger in knowledge itself, but that the littleness thereof may often lead people astray. A single truth properly grasped may form the basis for arriving at

a large store of wisdom. But when a truth is only partially grasped it often happens that the holders thereof use it as a weapon for working mischief.

It is therefore of very great importance that we should try to look at every side of a subject, and that we should be particularly careful to guard against the belief that the ability to utter words and phrases implies perfect knowledge of a subject. The evil of failing to grasp the meaning and bearing of words and phrases has often been exemplified in all departments of life.

The ability to talk about "formula" and "combinations" and alkalies" does not make a man a chemist; glibness in speaking of "human rights" and "civil and religious liberty" and "progressive legislation" does not necessarily constitute a politician; frequent mention of "the balance of power" and "the law of nations" and "treaty obligations" will not alone create a diplomatist. These "stock phrases," indeed, are very frequently the only stock-in-trade of individuals profoundly ignorant of subjects upon which they set themselves up as authorities. A well-directed question will often make patent the exact whereabouts of charlatans. Not that all who use these expressions intend to deceive other people, many quite unintentionally deceive themselves.

This self-deception is peculiarly patent in reference to the knowledge of religious subjects. Isolated passages of the Word, texts severed from their context, and, indeed, sometimes portions of verses, are dwelt upon and reiterated so frequently as to become "favourite passages," and views have been formed and supported by them that are in no sort of harmony with the general tenor of Divine revelation.

How often, for instance, when we as New Churchman, speaking of the necessity of the actual shunning of evils. as sins against God, or of the need there is for working out our salvation, and of the hard fight in which man has to engage ere he can overcome the sins that most easily beset him, are we met by the quotation, "The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin." Now even if these words were a fair quotation of the words of the Apostle of Love, they would not favour the notion that is sought to be conveyed by those with whom these. words are a "favourite passage."

We had once the privilege of a prolonged conversation with a venerable minister of one of the orthodox bodies, and after conversing for some time on other topics we introduced the subject of amendment of life as necessary to salvation. "Nothing of the kind, my dear sir, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin."" "Cleanseth WHO?" said we. "All who believe in Christ as our Substitute," he instantly replied. "Does the Apostle say so?" we asked. "Certainly," he rejoined. Are you quite sure?" we ventured meekly to suggest. "Sure! why, I have preached from the passage scores of times." And when we quoted to him the preceding words in the same verse, forming part of the same sentence, he flatly denied that they were there.

66

The whole passage (1 John i. 6, 7) reads, “If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." The mere reading of the passage in full is a sufficient refutation of the idea in favour of which it is generally quoted. Perfect cleansing is only possible to those who "walk in the light, as He is in the light." Hence the Apostle goes on to say, "If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

The Rev. C. H. Spurgeon in a sermon preached from

« ÎnapoiContinuă »