FOR several weeks past I have intended a visit to the patriarch of Antioch and the bishop of Jerusalem, ecclesiastics of the Syrian church, who have been some months in England on a mission in behalf of their schools. Their churches are few and have been much oppressed, doubtless because of their independence of the papacy, which has done all it could to get every one of the ancient Eastern churches into its power.
The patriarch is the acknowledged spiritual head of his people. The language of the church service is Syriac, or Aramaean, and is nearly, if not quite, the language spoken by our Lord and the Hebrew nation of his time. Once I listened to the church service, and was charmed by the music of the read and spoken tongue. I have often referred to the occasion, and, at the time called the attention of my learned friend, the late Rev. John Mills, to what seemed to be one-third Hebrew, one-third Arabic, and one-third Chaldaic. The language is deeply guttural, but soft to the ear and very expressive.
Three or four villages of this people in the Lebanon mountains, speak Syriac in common with the Arabic, which last is used by all the people about them. In the other localities the Syriac is used only in the church service. The Syriac is therefore to them the holy language; that is, it is for worship and religious purposes; just as Hebrew, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin are used by the several religious faiths—Jew, Christian, and Mahommedan.
The outgoing old year and the incoming new year brought with them an increased press of work, so that I began to despair of a chat with these native Arabs. But to-day I broke away from home. An hour's walk, and half an hour on the underground railway brought me to their lodgings in Hammersmith. An English gentleman, who was born and brought up in Jerusalem, was the first to extend to me the hand of welcome. The arrangement of the reception room was half oriental. Presently the bishop, with a pleasant countenance and affable bearing, was ushered into the room and seated by my side on the divan. His dragoman followed and stood at a little distance, with his eyes intently fixed upon his master, otherwise there was no show of dignity.
I was instantly at home, and as the Arabic began to flow from the lips of the bishop, I thought (as in former years) that it was the most delightful music I had heard for a long time. I was embarrassed for words, and all the more because of my obliging English friend's presence. He was perfectly at home in his native Arabic. To me fourteen years had caused quite a loss of the ready use of sentences. The bishop's rapid utterance was distinct enough; but it would have been fun to have thrown me into deep water and to have allowed me to swim for dear life; yet my friend was so glib that I allowed him to row the boat while I took the helm; i. e., I managed the simple sentences and he the compound ones. In fact, in three-quarters of an hour we had gone over enough Arabic for a student's practice for a twelve month, and could the interview have been prolonged for another three-quarters of an hour I might have been nearly myself again in the practice of the wonderful tongue of that wonderful people—the Arabs.
You must imagine the gestures, the one-sided tip of the head, and the shrug of the shoulders, the uplifted hands, the glistening eyes, the contrast in our dress, opinions, and dogmas, the gentleness and the fervor of the endeared companionship of that hour. You would have thought us old friends. At first I arose to salute the dragoman, and meeting no recognition, I took my seat, fully aware of my blunder, but the politeness of the company forbade any notice of the ludicrous mistake. The dragoman (turjoman—interpreter, but really a valet, a courier, and a general manager) would have been unfaithful to have acknowledged a recognition, which belonged wholly to his lord and master. Young, of a commanding physique, and neatly attired in native costume, not the least of which was the zunmar, or girdle, he was an important complement to the company.
During our rapid conversation the dragoman stood at a distance intently watching the bishop for a movement of the hand to indicate anything that might be wanted. For the hundredth time I witnessed the illustration of Ps. 123:2: "Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters," &c. The bishop is apparently forty, has dark, olive complexion, frank countenance, and very graceful manners. The patriarch was too ill, or too fatigued to be seen.
Soon, however, I introduced the question of the Names and the Order of the Days of the Week. I asked him: "What do you call, or what other name do you give to the days of sevens?" The word usboo-ah or sevens, is used in Arabic for week. "Shoof, ya akhee," said the bishop; i. e., "look here, O brother," and taking his left hand in his right, as the Arabs do when about to count, and touching each finger and counting, he said:—
"El-had, . . . . (The First,
El-ithneen, . . . . The Second,
E-thalathee, . . . . The Third,
El-arbah, . . . . The Fourth,
El-khamees, . . . . The Fifth,
El-joomah, . . . . The Assembly,
Es-Sabt," . . . . The Sabbath.)
The more literal translation is the one, the two, the three, the four, the five, the assembly, the Sabbath—with day understood, but pronounced when required, before the words one, two, three, &c., thus making the meaning to be day of the ONE, day of the two, &c.; so with the last yom, or day, is understood to belong to the word, or name Sabbath, as much as to the other days thus: yom es-sabt or day of the Sabbath.
My next question was: "Do you ever call them by the names. Sunday, Monday, and Saturday? Bishop. "Never, never, in every place among the Arabs, no matter where, nor what the dialect may be, among all Arabs it is the same: THEY KNOW NO OTHER NAMES BUT THE NUMBERS AND JOOMAH AND ES-SABT."
"Do you ever speak of El-had (the first) as yom ir-Rub (day of the Lord)?" At this the bishop slightly shrugged the shoulder, and replied quickly: "It is not the custom to speak of it as such. You may sometimes hear it, but only occasionally, and then when treating of religious matters; but even then only rarely." "Is it found in your church books or liturgy?" Bishop. "It can be found in our writings, but rarely, yet we give it no heed, or rather it has no effect to change the universal practice of calling it El-had" (the first).
As it was Wednesday, I said, "What do you call to-night?" Bishop. "What, the night that is coming?" "Yes." Bishop. "Why, El-khamees" (the fifth). "And what do you call this night?" (That is, the night belonging to this DAY.) Bishop. "Layl-at-El-arbah," i. e., night of the fourth day.
Observe that these questions were not leading ones. The bishop is a responsible representative of the oldest of the Christian churches in the East, if not of the first church at Jerusalem. Whatever of error that church has it has never been guilty of robbing the first day and the Sabbath day of their scriptural names, and more, of attempting to blot out the name Sabbath and foist into its place the name of an idol.
During my residence in Jerusalem, had I been impressed with the importance of an accumulation of evidence, I might have made a record of thousands of instances where these old scriptural names were used by all classes. The only exception being the case of appointments for the first day by foreign Protestant missionaries who sometimes used "Lord's day," but not Sabbath. Even this had no effect upon the natives; and God grant that it may never affect them in the way of sanctifying what he has not ordained. The Syrian church, like all Eastern churches, is not a Sabbath-keeping church. Its worship day is the first day. But let the reader bear in mind, that more than one hundred millions of Arabs, and those influenced by their customs, inhabiting nearly all of Northern Africa and Western Asia, use the names of the days of the week as stated above.
I asked the bishop: "Have you books published in English which give an account of your church?" His answer was: "There are such, but unfortunately they abound in mistakes."
At parting, our brother of the cloth, inquired if I had children, and how many. He wished very hearty blessings for them and for my wife—blessings expressed in a style purely biblical and oriental, but at which Western usage hints silence; we bade each other farewell with a Kheirak and a Salaam =good will and peace.
W. M. JONES.
London, Jan. 27, 1875.
Christian Sensitiveness.
THE church of God seems to have lost her delicacy of touch and sensation. There are some members of Christ's body who do things in business they ought not to do, and they are not conscious of doing wrong, because they have not enough life in them to be delicately sensitive of the approach of sin. Some good people neglect their Christian duty, and they are scarcely aware of it; they do not attach any importance to it, because they have not life enough to make them sensitive. If we are ever to do anything for God, we must get back the delicate touch of abundant life. There are some persons who may lose an arm and scarcely suffer so much as another having an ordinary wound, because they are constituted with abundance of life. There is something in the constitution of the brain that makes them sensitive all over, and they will have greater pain. Do not try to escape from spiritual pain. I would like to feel the burden of the Lord pressing upon me day and night, till the thought of a soul being lost will not let me rest. There is not the feeling that there ought to be; and till God gives us life which will make us feel for sinners so as to weep over cities as Christ did, we will not see any great work done. The Lord wants us ministers, especially, to be delicately sensitive against everything that is wrong and would lead us to neglect the souls of others! We want to have more and more of that delicacy and quickness of apprehension. We read of our Lord that he was quick of understanding. We want to be just like that.
You who employ servants know the difference between those who must be told every time there is a thing to be done, and those whose eye is on their mistress; just a look from you, and that is enough. You need not speak at all; they know what they should do, and do it with alacrity. We want that kind of delicacy restored to us, that we may know the Lord's will quickly, and not be as the horse or the mule, but ready to be moved at once by the will of God. We should not be like the "Great Eastern," that wants a huge wave to move it, but like the feather on the lake, that is driven along by the softest breeze of the gale. Oh, to be delicately apprehensive of the mind of God, to know it, and to follow it! Sometimes life in certain parts of the body has been cultivated to such a high degree, that our bodily system is capable of much more than it has ever displayed. Look at the red Indian, as he puts his ear to the ground and listens, and says, "They come!" Just so, if our ears get quickened, we shall hear the footsteps of the coming Lord, and say when others hear it not, "He comes!" We shall be like the Highland woman at Lucknow, who cried, "They are coming, they are coming!" She could hear the music of the Highlanders. Oh! to be able to hear the music of heaven, and to say—
'Home of my soul, how near at times
Thy golden gates appear!'
to get sensitive to unseen things, and realize and see the things that are yet to be revealed to us!—Spurgeon.
Pre-Millennial Advent.—No. 2.
By Charles Beecher
To deny the pre-millennial coming of Christ, you must spiritualize every promise of his coming, connected with millennial descriptions, in the Bible.
Fully to show this, I should be obliged to notice every case of such connection. But as this would task your patience, I shall select a few cases, and challenge any opponent to produce an exception.
1. How often, dear brother, have we heard our father, and other venerable ministers of the gospel, apply to millennial passages from the 102d Psalm: "Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion, for the time to favor her, yea, THE SET TIME is come. For thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and favor the dust thereof. So the heathen shall fear the name of the Lord, and all the kings of the earth thy glory." A little further on, we read that this refers to a time "when the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the Lord." That these are millennial times, I suppose all agree. And if I mistake not, our respected father is one of those who does not spiritualize the prophecies of the restoration of the Jews, and who believes that at that time God will truly "hear the groaning of the prisoner, and loose those appointed unto death, to declare the name of the Lord in Zion and his praise IN JERUSALEM.
But whether this be literal or not, is immaterial. It is confessedly millennial. If it is not the restoration, it is at least the conversion of the Jews. Now the question is, Have we here any "promise of his coming"? If we have, it is probably in verse 16: "When the Lord shall build up Zion, HE SHALL APPEAR IN HIS GLORY."
Now the apostles have well instructed us that at his first "APPEARING" to set up the gospel dispensation, these words could not apply. It "behooved him then to SUFFER," and to "enter into his glory" afterward, when he should "appear the second time, without sin unto salvation." This "appearing in glory" then, of which the Psalmist speaks, and which is still future, is it here made to stand before or after the millennium? Evidently before. It is "when the Lord shall build up Zion." It is "when the set time is come." Suppose now, like our father, we believe in the literal rebuilding of Jerusalem at that time, I ask, Will not the Lord then "appear in glory"? And if so, is not this pre-millennial? And even if you deny the literal rebuilding of Jerusalem, and mean only the conversion of the Jews, will not that equally identify the TIME of such "appearing"?
To deny the pre-millennial advent then, what is necessary? You must spiritualize this "appearing in glory."
Now the word "shall appear" is the Niphal of the verb Raah, and refers, if not exclusively, yet appropriately, to visible manifestation. For example:—
Ex. 16:10: "They looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud." Gen. 12:7: "And the Lord appeared unto Abraham." 2 Chron. 3:1: "Mt. Moriah, where Jehovah appeared unto David." And what good reason can be given for here divesting it of its usual meaning? Is it not a well-ascertained rule of interpretation that the literal and common sense of a word is always to be taken, unless some reason exists for substituting another? But what reason is there here, unless it be partiality for a certain theory? But is that a good reason? That is making your interpretation bend to your theory, rather than obtaining your theory by interpretation. Will you find any reason in the context? "In his glory"? But these are the very words to which the "Shekinah" of the later Jews corresponds, and which when united with Jehovah denote (says Prof. Robinson), "that fiery effulgence surrounded by dark clouds in which Jehovah is represented as appearing, or God himself surrounded by this effulgence from which lightnings proceed." e. g., Lev. 9:2, 3: "And the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people." Compare Num. 16:35; Ps. 18:10-13; Ex. 16:7-10; Ex. 24:16, 17; 33:18; Lev. 9:6, 23; Ex. 40:34; 1 Kings 8:11; Ezek. 43:2, 5, &c.
Let me request you to examine these passages, and then answer this question— When David says that "at the building up of Zion," "the Lord shall appear in his glory," what reason have I for denying to these words their obvious and usual signification? Why, unless it be that only thus then can I escape the doctrine of the pre-millennial advent? But if this be spiritualized, then is that unhappy process begun, by which every "promise of his coming," connected with millennial descriptions, will be eradicated from the Bible.—Charles Beecher, in letter to Henry Ward Beecher.
Closer to Christ.
REV. DR. PUNSHON, in closing his grand speech at the Wesleyan Missionary Anniversary, Exeter Hall, London, May 4, carried his hearers to the highest pitch of enthusiasm, when, after an eloquent tribute to fellow-laborers who had fallen at their posts of duty, he said:—
“The sole remedy for all our woes, all our apprehensions, for all our sorrow, is just to come closer to Christ—closer to Christ in personal experience, closer to Christ in daily communion, closer to Christ in perpetual reliance, closer to Christ in importunate prayer, closer to Christ in honest and hearty work! When the good Dr. Alexander, of Princeton, New Jersey, lay a-dying, some one came to him, and quoted a passage for his comfort as he lay half unconscious—‘I know in whom I have believed’. A fire lit up his glazing eye and the old Christian warrior roused himself as for an utterance of latest testimony, and he said to his startled listeners—‘No, I cannot allow even a preposition between me and my Saviour; I know whom I have believed!’ Let us get up to that level; let the great baptized heart of the church get up to that level of intimate, close, faithful union with Christ, and we and our cause are safe! No fear of the confessional then. Assuredly those who will not bear an intervening preposition will never brook an intervening priest. No fear of over-weening sorrow then, for we shall remember that although God buries his workmen, he carries on his work. No fear of relaxed efforts then, for idleness will be seen in its hatefulness as a sin against boundless love. No fear of straightened means and empty exchequers, and niggard doles, and small-hearted liberalities then, for the frost of every heart must melt that is so near the Saviour; and men putting away the large greeds and little givings of their childish days will, like Araunah, ‘as a king give unto the king;’ pouring out their treasures as brave warriors their blood, and giving, or striving to give, in some far-off and reverent manner, after the measure of him, who, that we and the world might live, spared not his only begotten Son!”—Bible Banner.
How Readest Thou?
By Editor
WHEN a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Christ with the inquiry, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? he answered, “What is written in the law? How readest thou?” Christ here refers the tempting lawyer to the letter of the law as meaning just what it says. In doing this he honors the Scriptures, and sets an example of great importance to all who would teach the word of God.
It is a matter of no small joy to those who teach unpopular truth to be able to read the reasons for their faith and practice, in plain and literal terms, right out of the Book of God. To illustrate: Christ said of his second appearing, “And they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Matt. 24 : 30. Does this mean the conversion of sinners and the death of saints? Or does it mean what it says?
“How readest thou?” If you depart from the safe rule of interpretation, that the Scriptures mean what they say, excepting where the text and context plainly indicate that a parable or figure is employed, then you find but little difficulty in making the plainest declarations of the personal appearing of Christ to raise the righteous dead, and to destroy the wicked, mean death, conversion, the advent of the Holy Spirit, the temporal millennium, Shakerism, Spiritualism, or Mormonism. The angels said to the men of Galilee, “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye see him go into heaven.” Did these angels mean what they said? If they did not mean what they said, who can tell us what they did mean?
“How readest thou?” One says that they meant death, another, conversion. No, says a third, their words were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. No! no! cries a fourth, they apply to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the conversion of the world, and the temporal millennium. And the Shakers come in with their claim for the second manifestation of the Son of God in the person of Ann Lee; while Mormons, and those who claim to be Christian Spiritualists, are equally positive.
When Paul says in his first epistle to the church of Christ at Thessalonica, “The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first,” he does not mean “the man in the moon.”
“How readest thou?” The apostle continues: “Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” He means just what he says.
Paul speaks in terms easy to be understood of the great event in the near future so frequently referred to in both the Old and the New Testaments, when the King of kings shall personally preside at the destruction of his enemies, and the final triumphant gathering of all his people. “And to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe.”
“How readest thou?” Will our friends who adopt the mystical interpretation apply the words in Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians, chapter 1 : 7–10, to the conversion of sinners, and the death of saints? Does the apostle here represent the power of the glorious gospel of Christ and the manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of sinners by the vengeance of flaming fire in their destruction? Astonishing! And when he speaks of the admiration and the glorification of the saints does he refer to the “king of terrors,” the Christian’s last enemy, death? Absurdity! The great Redeemer appeared in this world once as a teacher, and at the close of his ministry gave his life for the sins of men. He was buried, he was raised from the dead, and he ascended up on high to be a mediator for repenting sinners. Thus the Redeemer prepared the way for the redemption of those who come to God by Jesus Christ.
But the scheme of redemption is to be completed at Christ’s second appearing, when the righteous dead of all past ages will be raised to immortal life, and gathered by the holy angels up to the city of God. The earth in due time will be renovated by fire, and sin and sinners will be destroyed out of it. Thus renovated and purified from the curse and its effects, will appear the new heavens and the new earth, which will be the eternal inheritance of the saints. “Blessed are the meek,” says Christ, “for they shall inherit the earth.” Matt. 5 : 5. David says: “For yet a little while and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” Ps. 37 : 10, 11.
“How readest thou?” Is it not in the future inheritance of the saints that “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea?” Isa. 11 : 9. “For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” Hab. 2 : 14. Will those who apply this prophecy, and others of like import, to a temporal millennium—a period of one thousand years of complete triumph of the church, when all men will be holy—please dispose of the three following facts in harmony with their theory:
1. In the parable of the wheat and the tares both were to grow together until the harvest, which represented the end of the world. The children of the kingdom and the children of the wicked one were both to exist in this world to the end of the age.
2. The angel Gabriel instructs Daniel in his seventh chapter that the little horn, the papacy, would prevail to the end.
3. The close of the Christian age, which is supposed will terminate with glory when the earth will be full of the glory of the Lord, is marked by the apostle Paul as a time of peril and apostasy, and the sins of the people are represented by the Son of God as in the days of Lot which called for fire from heaven, and the days of Noah which called for the waters of the flood to wash the world from its moral pollution.
“How readest thou?” If we are allowed to understand the apostle Peter as meaning what he says, the doctrine of the renovation of the world by fire, and the destruction of wicked men instead of their conversion, and the new earth as the happy home of the saved, will appear exceedingly plain. He speaks of scoffers in the last days as being ignorant of these literal facts, and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming?” Is it possible that these are the very men who hold the mystical views in the popular churches of our time? The apostle shall testify, and the reader may judge.
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished; but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment and perdition of189ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” 2 Pet. 3 : 3–13.
The apostle has so clearly identified the three worlds, namely, the one before the flood, the one that now is, and the new earth which is to come, as to entirely preclude the figurative view. He says: “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” 2 Pet. 3 : 5–7, 13.
No fact can be more plainly stated than that the world that perished by the flood is the same as that which now is, and is reserved unto fire. This is to be changed by fire, and then will appear the new heavens and the new earth, according to the promise of God. And it is a remarkable fact that the promise referred to by the apostle is found only in Isa. chap. 65. Thus the apostle links the three worlds together. Are the first two worlds literal? So is the third. Is the new earth mentioned in Isaiah figurative? So are all three worlds figurative. But if they are all literal, then we see a harmony in Scripture respecting them. If they be regarded as figurative, then we are left to the following conclusion:—
That in the days of figurative Noah the figurative heavens and earth, being overflowed by figurative water, perished figuratively. But the figurative heavens and earth which are now, are reserved unto figurative fire, against the figurative day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly figurative men. Nevertheless, we, according to his figurative promise, look for figurative new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth figurative righteousness. True, the sacred writers use figures and parables. But we should believe that God in his word means just what he says, unless the connection shows good reasons why a figure or parable is introduced.
“How readest thou?” When the angel Gabriel states to the prophet Daniel that “the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heavens shall be given to the saints of the Most High,” will our mystical friends cast his words behind them, as those of a cold materialist, and in order to keep their fervor of immateriality, sing with the poet:
“Beyond the bound of time and space, look for that heavenly place, The Saints’ secure abode.” We heartily confess to the doctrine that the Son of God, who was equal with the Father, took man’s nature; that he died; was buried; that he arose from the dead with body and parts, and that same being ascended to Heaven, and will come to the earth the second time to raise the dead and make all things new. Just how Christ became flesh and how he could lay down his life and take it again —remains a mystery as expressed by Paul in his letter to Timothy: “Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.” It is a thousand times easier to believe the sacred record on these points, and that immortal saints will have bodies like unto Christ’s glorious body, and that they will dwell upon the material earth as their inheritance, than to believe that the plain language of the Bible on these points means something besides what it says.
At the close of one of our first lectures upon the city of God of Rev. 21, thirty-two years since, in the State of Maine, one of those plain, neat-looking, broad-brimmed gentlemen, whom we at once recognized as a Friend Quaker, gently tapped us on the shoulder, and mildly said, “Thee will never see a great literal city coming down out of the heavens. I have that city in my heart.” Well, thought we, this is a big-hearted gentleman indeed. But let us look over the description of the golden city, as given by John with this view of the matter:—
“How readest thou?” Said the angel to the prophet, “Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. Having the glory of God; and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; and had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates, twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel.”
And the venerable Quaker friend really imagined that he had this city—lighted by the glory of God—with its high and massive walls—twelve gates—twelve angels—all in his heart! With all reverence for the words of the prophet of God, and also with a willingness to let the mystical view be fairly seen, we continue the words of John, representing the Friend’s view in brackets, as follows:
“On the east [side of his heart] three gates; on the north [side of his heart] three gates; on the south [side of his heart] three gates; and on the west [side of his heart] three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof and the wall thereof.
“And the city lieth foursquare [in the Quaker’s heart], and the length is as large as the breadth. And he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. [Enormous heart! or did John mean twelve thousand mystical furlongs, so that the Quaker could, without the least difficulty, put the city into his vest pocket.] And the length, and the breadth, and the hight of it are equal.
“And he measured the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and four cubits, according [to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel.]”
Now what was really in the good man’s heart? Our mystical friends answer, “The grace of God.” Very well. Then we inquire, Is the grace of God foursquare—as long as it is broad—twelve thousand furlongs each way—has it four gates, one at each of the four points of the compass? But, if the reader decides that the good Quaker was too local in his application of the golden city of God, and still persists in the mystical application of the city to the Christian church, or to the gospel age, then we again inquire, What shall we understand by the mystical north side of the church, or the mystical north side of the Christian age, where there may be found the mystical gates! Does the Christian age or the Christian church lie foursquare? And is the length and breadth of the Christian age, or the Christian church, the same? And will some one tell us how it is that the mystical city measured a hundred and forty and four mystical furlongs?
What a miserable theological muddle! And why? Simply because theological men mystify without the least necessity, that which in itself is easy to be understood when taken as meaning what it says. Figures or parables are never introduced in the Scriptures to make the doctrines more obscure. Never! We have ever objected to young ministers using figures more intricate than the subjects which they wished to illustrate. Men may err in this way; but God never does. The language of his book possesses a dignified simplicity which no other book does. And when the Holy Spirit employs allegories it is that the subject may be made more clear and forcible thereby.
Dr. Scott gave his Pilgrim’s Progress with Notes, to a poor lady of his parish. In a few days he met her, and asked her how she liked the book, and if she could understand it. “Very much,” was the reply, “I understand what Mr. Bunyan wrote very well, and I hope soon to be able to understand the notes.” And it is the universal testimony of those who have cast off mystical interpretations and have taken the Bible as it reads on such subjects as the second advent, the resurrection, the inheritance, the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and baptism, that the Bible has become to them a new book, plain, harmonious, and easy to be understood by those who search the Scriptures.
We will here give some pointed thoughts, written in stirring style, said to have been taken from an old almanac, upon the subject of
IMMATERTIALITY
IMMATERTIALITY is but another name for nonentity. It is the negative of all things and beings—of all existence. There is not one particle of proof to be advanced to establish its existence. It has no way to manifest itself to any intelligence in Heaven or on earth. Neither God, angels, nor men, could possibly conceive of such a substance, being or thing. It possesses no property or power by which to make itself manifest to any intelligent being in the universe. Reason and analogy never scan it, or even conceive of it. Revelation never reveals it, nor do any of our senses witness its existence. It cannot be seen, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled, even by the strongest organs, or the most acute sensibilities. It is neither liquid nor solid, soft nor hard—it can neither extend nor contract. In short it can exert no influence whatever—it can neither act nor be acted upon. And even if it does exist, it can be of no possible use. It possesses no one desirable property, faculty, or use, yet, strange to say, Immateriality is the modern Christian’s God, his anticipated Heaven, his immortal self—his all.
O sectarianism! O atheism! O annihilation!!! who can perceive the nice shades of difference between the one and the other? They seem alike, all but in name. The atheist has no God. The sectarian has a God without body or parts. Who can define the difference? for our part we do not perceive a difference of a single hair; they both claim to be the negative of all things which exist—and both are equally powerless and unknown.
The atheist has no after life, or conscious existence beyond the grave. The sectarian has one, but it is “immaterial,” like his God; and without body or parts. Here again both are negative, and both arrive at the same point. Their faith and hope amount to the same; only it is expressed by different terms.
Again, the atheist has no Heaven in eternity. The sectarian has one, but it is “immaterial” in all its properties, and it is therefore the negative of all riches and substances. Here again they are equal, and arrive at the same point.
As we do not envy them the possession of all they claim, we will now leave them in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the same, and proceed to examine the portion still left for the despised “materialist” to enjoy.
What is God? He is a personal, organized intelligence, possessing both body and parts. He is in the form of man.
What is Jesus Christ? He is the Son of God, and is like his Father, being “the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” He is a personal intelligence, with body, parts, and passions; possessing immortal flesh and immortal bones.
What are men? They are the offspring of Adam. They are capable of receiving intelligence and exaltation to such a degree as to be raised from the dead with a body like that of Jesus Christ, and to possess immortal flesh and bones. Thus perfected, they will possess the material universe, that is, the earth, as their “everlasting inheritance.” With these hopes and prospects before us, we say to the Christian world, who hold to immateriality, that they are welcome to their God—their life—their Heaven, and their all. They claim nothing but that which we throw away; and we claim nothing but that which they throw away. Therefore, there is no ground for quarrel or contention between us.
We choose all substance—what remains,
The mystical sectarian gains;
All that each claims each shall possess,
Nor grudge each other’s happiness.
An immaterial God they choose,
An immaterial Heaven and hell;
For such a God we have no use,
In such a Heaven we cannot dwell.
We claim the earth, the air, and sky,
And all the starry worlds on high;
Gold, silver, ore, and precious stones,
And bodies made of flesh and bones.
Such is our hope, our Heaven, our all,
When once redeemed from Adam’s fall;
All things are ours, and we shall be,
The Lord’s to all eternity.