ON SIMILE AND METAPHOR IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 



103 



however, is certainly not excluded. There is Divine origination 

 and execution superimposed upon the conception of natural 

 or physical entrance into the world. But the very statement of 

 the doctrine reveals the insufficiency of the human analogy or 

 verbal expression. The one fact or experience is in the 

 sphere of the natural, the other in the realm of the spirit. 



If I have spoken to you of the earthly things and ye believe 

 not, how will ye beheve if I speak to you of the heavenly things ? " 

 (v. 12). The comparison or contrast with the earthly birth is 

 appropriate, because the latter marks an initiation, a new 

 development, with wellnigh infinite possibilities before it ; 

 like St. Paul's " new creation," Kaivr) ktlol^; (2 Cor. v. 17) ; 

 the beginning of a new era, a life that finds itself in a new environ- 

 ment, heir to wider and loftier experiences. The analogy, 

 however, is and necessarily remains imperfect. If the earthly 

 birth admits to a certain extent of description, its methods 

 and laws determined and its processes set forth, it is otherwise 

 with the modes and facts of spiritual life. " The spirit bloweth 

 as it will . . . thou knowest not whence it cometh and whither 

 it goeth away" (v. 8). The heavenly transcends the earthly, 

 and it is only suggestively and partially set forth in terms of 

 mortahty. The symbol is however a faithful reflection as far 

 as it goes, not misleading but insufficient ; and is not intended to 

 be urged or emphasized in all its details, as the details of a picture 

 may be expected to correspond with its photograph. Ony in 

 its general outhne as it were, and the essential points of its 

 representation is the truth to be sought and found. 



The three so-called "great words" of St. John's teaching — 

 Light, Life and Love — (</)a>9, fwr;, aydirri) are all in a more or less 

 degree figurative and suggest or imply a metaphorical content. 

 They are words borrowed from human thought and experience 

 to describe Divine relations and character. For this purpose 

 they are insufficient, as all finite terms are unequal to the exposi- 

 tion of the infinite. They illustrate or illuminate in part ; but 

 they cannot attain to adequacy or fullness of definition. This 

 again, let me repeat, does not imply that the characterisation 

 is erroneous, still less misleading. It is true, as far as it goes ; 

 and in some instances surely it carries us far. But of necessity 

 it falls short of exact and complete analysis. Human thought 

 is as deficient as human language in any terms that would 

 adequately set forth the superhuman and Divine. God is light 

 and love ; but not the physical fight and human love which we 



