§ 1. Meaning of the Words
Enthusiasm and Mysticism. § 2.
Mysticism in the Early Church.
§ 3. Mysticism during the
Middle Ages.
§ 4. Mysticism at, and after
the Reformation. § 5. Quietism.
§ 6. The Quakers or Friends. § 7.
Objections to the Mystical Theory.
§ 1. Meaning of the
Words Enthusiasm and Mysticism.
IN the popular sense of the word, enthusiasm means a
high state of mental excitement. In that state all the powers are exalted, the
thoughts become more comprehensive and vivid, the feelings more fervid, and
the will more determined. It is in these periods of excitement that the
greatest works of genius, whether by poets, painters, or warriors, have been
accomplished. The ancients referred this exaltation of the inner man to a
divine influence. They regarded persons thus excited as possessed, or having a
God within them. Hence they were called enthusiasts (e;nqeoj).
In theology, therefore, those who ignore or reject the guidance of the
Scriptures, and assume to be led by an inward divine influence into the
knowledge and obedience of the truth, are properly called Enthusiasts. This
term, however, has been in a great measure superseded by the word Mystics.
Few words indeed have been used in such a vague,
indefinite sense as Mysticism. Its etymology does not determine its meaning. A
mu,sthj was one initiated into the knowledge of the
Greek mysteries, one to whom secret things had been revealed. Hence in the
wide sense of the word, a Mystic is one who claims to see or know what is
hidden from other men, whether this knowledge be attained by immediate
intuition, or by inward revelation. In most cases these methods were assumed
to be identical, as intuition was held to be the immediate vision of God and
of divine things. Hence, in the wide sense of the word, Mystics are those who
claim to be under the immediate guidance of God or of his Spirit.
A. The Philosophical Use of the Word.
Hence Mysticism, in this sense, includes all those
systems of philosophy, which teach either the identity of God and the soul, or
the immediate intuition of the infinite. The pantheism of the Brahmins and
Buddhists, the theosophy of the Sufis, the Egyptian, and many forms of the
Greek philosophy, in this acceptation of the term, are all Mystical. As the
same system has been reproduced in modern times, the same designation is
applied to the philosophy of Spinoza, and its various modifications. According
to Cousin, "Mysticism in philosophy is the belief that God may be known face
to face, without anything intermediate. It is a yielding to the sentiment
awakened by the idea of the infinite, and a running up of all knowledge and
all duty to the contemplation and love of Him."1
For the same reason the whole Alexandrian school of
theology in the early Church has been called Mystical. They characteristically
depreciated the outward authority of the Scriptures, and exalted that of the
inward light. It is true they called that light reason, but they regarded it
as divine. According to the new Platonic doctrine, the
Lo,goj, or impersonal reason of God, is Reason in man; or as Clemens
Alexandrinus said, The Logos was a light common to all men. That, therefore,
to which supreme authority was ascribed in the pursuit of truth, was "God
within us." This is the doctrine of modern Eclecticism as presented by Cousin.
That philosopher says, "Reason is impersonal in its nature. It is not we who
make it. It is so far from being individual, that its peculiar characteristics
are the opposite of individuality, namely, universality and necessity, since
it is to Reason we owe the knowledge of universal and necessary truths, of
principles which we all obey, and cannot but obey It descends from God, and
approaches man. It makes its appearance in the consciousness as a guest, who
brings intelligence of an unknown world, of which it at once presents the idea
and awakens the want. If reason were personal, it would have no value, no
authority beyond the limits of the individual subject. . . . . Reason is a
revelation, a necessary and universal revelation which is wanting to no man,
and which enlightens every man on his coming into the world. Reason is the
necessary mediator between God and man, the Lo,goj
of Pythagoras and Plato, the Word made Flesh, which serves as the interpreter
of God, and teacher of man, divine and human at the same time. It is not
indeed the absolute God in his majestic individuality, but his manifestation
in spirit and in truth. It is not the Being of beings, but it is the revealed
God of the human race."2
Reason, according to this system, is not a faculty of
the human soul, but God in man. As electricity and magnetism are (or used to
be) regarded as forces diffused through the material world, so the
Lo,goj, the divine impersonal reason, is diffused
through the world of mind, and reveals itself more or less potentially in the
souls of all men. This theory, in one aspect, is a form of Rationalism, as it
refers all our higher, and especially our religious knowledge, to a subjective
source, which it designates Reason. It has, however, more points of analogy
with Mysticism, because, (1.) It assumes that the informing principle, the
source of knowledge and guide in duty, is divine, something which does not
belong to our nature, but appears as a guest in our consciousness. (2.) The
office of this inward principle, or light, is the same in both systems. It is
to reveal truth and duty, to elevate and purify the soul. (3.) Its authority
is the same; that is, it is paramount if not exclusive. (4.) Its very
designations are the same. It is called by philosophers, God, the
Lo,goj, the Word; by Christians, Christ within us,
or, the Spirit. Thus systems apparently the most diverse (Cousin and George
Fox!) run into each other, and reveal themselves as reproductions of heathen
philosophy, or of the heresies of the early Church.
Although the Alexandrian theologians had these points
of agreement with the Mystics, yet as they were speculative in their whole
tendency, and strove to transmute Christianity into a philosophy, they are not
properly to be regarded as Mystics in the generally received theological
meaning of the term.
B. The Sense in which Evangelical Christians
are called Mystics.
As all Evangelical Christians admit a supernatural
influence of the Spirit of God upon the soul, and recognize a higher form of
knowledge, holiness, and fellowship with God, as the effects of that
influence, they are stigmuatized as Mystics, by those who discard everything
supernatural from Christianity. The definitions of Mysticism given by
Rationalists are designedly so framed as to include what all evangelical
Christians hold to be true concerning the illumination, teaching, and guidance
of the Holy Spirit. Thus Wegscheider3 says,
"Mysticismus est persuasio de singulari animae facultate ad immediatum ipsoque
sensu percipiendumu cum numine aut naturis coelestibus commercium jam in hac
vita perveniendi, quo mens immediate cognitione rerum divinarum ac beatitate
perfruatur." And Bretschneider4 defines
Mysticism as a " Belief in a continuous operation of God on the soul,
secured by special religious exercise, producing illumination, holiness, and
beatitude." Evangelical theologians so far acquiesce in this view, that they
say, as Lange,5and Nitsch,6
"that every true believer is a Mystic." The latter writer adds, "That
the Christian ideas of illumination, revelation, incarnation, regeneration,
the sacraments and the resurrection, are essentially Mystical elements. As
often as the religious and church-life recovers itself from formalism and
scholastic barrenness, and is truly revived, it always appears as Mystical,
and gives rise to the outcry that Mysticism is gaining the ascendency." Some
writers, indeed, make a distinction between Mystik and Mysticismus. "Die
innerliche Lebendigkeit der Religion ist allezeit Mystik" (The inward vitality
of religion is ever Mystik), says Nitsch, but "Mysticismus ist eine einseitige
Herrschaft und eino Ausartung der mystischen Richtung" That is, Mysticism is
an undue and perverted development of the mystical element which belongs to
true religion. This distinction, between Mystik and Mysticismus, is not
generally recognized, and cannot be well expressed in English. Lange, instead
of using different words, speaks of a true and false Mysticism. But different
things should be designated by different words. There has been a religious
theory, which has more or less extensively prevailed in the Church, which is
distinguished from the Scriptural doctrine by unmistakable characteristics,
and which is known in church history as Mysticism, and the word should be
restricted to that theory. It is the theory, variously modified, that the
knowledge, purity, and blessedness to be derived from communion with God, are
not to be attained from the Scriptures and the use of the ordinary means of
grace, but by a supernatural and immediate divine influence, which influence
(or communication of God to the soul) is to be secured by passivity, a simple
yielding the soul without thought or effort to the divine influx.
C. The System which makes the Feelings the
Source of Knowledge.
A still wider use of the word Mvsticism has to some
extent been adopted. Any system, whether in philosophy or religion, which
assigns more importance to the feelings than to the intellect, is called
Mystical. Cousin, and after him, Morell, arrange the systems of philosophy
under the heads of Sensationalism, Idealism, Skepticism, and Mysticism. The
first makes the senses the exclusive or predominant source of our knowledge;
the second, the self, in its constitution and laws, as understood and
apprehended by the intellect; and Mysticism, the feelings. The Mystic assumes
that the senses and reason are alike untrustworthy and inadequate, as sources
of knowledge; that nothing can be received with confidence as truth, at least
in the higher departments of knowledge, in all that relates to our own nature,
to God, and our relation to Him, except what is revealed either naturally or
supernaturally in the feelings. There are two forms of Mysticism, therefore:
the one which assumes the feelings themselves to be the sources of this
knowledge; the other that it is through the feelings that God makes the truth
known to the soul.7 "Reason is no longer
viewed as the great organ of truth; its decisions are enstamped as uncertain,
faulty, and well-nigh valueless, while the inward impulses of our sensibility,
developing themselves in the form of faith or of inspiration, are held up as
the true and infallible source of human knowledge. The fundamental process,
therefore, of all Mysticism, is to reverse the true order of nature, and give
the precedence to the emotional instead of the intellectual element of the
human mind."8 This is declared to be "the
common ground of all Mysticism."
Schleiermacher's Theory.
If this be a correct view of the nature of Mysticism;
if it consists in giving predominant authority to the feelings in matters of
religion; and if their impulses, developing themselves in the form of faith,
are the true and infallible source of knowledge, then Schleiermacher's system,
adopted and expounded by Morell himself in his "Philosophy of Religion," is
the most elaborate system of theology ever presented to the Church. It is the
fundamental principle of Schleiermacher's theory, that religion resides not in
the intelligence, or the will or active powers, but in the sensibility. It is
a form of feeling, a sense of absolute dependence. Instead of being, as we
seem to be, individual, separate free agents, originating our own acts, we
recognize ourselves as a part of a great whole, determined in all things by
the great whole, of which we are a part. We find ourselves as finite creatures
over against an infinite Being, in relation to whom we are as nothing. The
Infinite is everything; and everything is only a manifestation of the
Infinite. "Although man," says even Morell, "while in the midst of finite
objects, always feels himself to a certain extent free and independent; yet in
the presence of that which is self-existent, infinite, and eternal, he may
feel the sense of freedom utterly pass away, and become absorbed in the sense
of absolute dependence."9
This is said to be the essential principle of religion in all its forms from
Fetichism up to Christianity. It depends mainly on the degree of culture of
the individual or community, in what way this sense of dependence shall reveal
itself: because the more enlightened and pure the individual is, the more he
will be able to apprehend aright what is involved in this sense of dependence
upon God. Revelation is not the communication of new truth to the
understanding, but the providential influences by which the religious life is
awakened in the soul. Inspiration is not the divine influence which controls
the mental operations and utterances of its subject, so as to render him
infallible in the communication of the truth revealed, but simply the
intuition of eternal verities due to the excited state of the religious
feelings. Christianity, subjectively considered, is the intuitions of good
men, as occasioned and determined by the appearance of Christ. Objectively
considered, or, in other words, Christian theology, it is the logical
analysis, and scientific arrangement and elucidation of the truths involved in
those intuitions. The Scriptures, as a rule of faith, have no authority. They
are of value only as means of awakening in us the religious life experienced
by the Apostles, and thus enabling us to attain like intuitions of divine
things. The source of our religious life, according to this system, is the
feelings, and if this be the characteristic feature of Mysticism, the
Schleiermaeher doctrine is purely Mystical.
D. Mysticism as known in Church History.
This, however, is not what is meant by Mysticismn, as
it has appeared in the Christian Church. The Mystics, as already stated, are
those who claim an immediate communication of divine knowledge and of divine
life from God to the soul, independently of the Scriptures and the use of the
ordinary means of grace. "It despairs," says Fleming, "of the regular process
of science; it believes that we may attain directly, without the aid of the
senses or reason, and by an immediate intuition, the real and absolute
principle of all truth, -- God."10
Mystics are of two classes; the Theosophists, whose
object is knowledge, and with whom the organ of communication with God, is the
reason; and the Mystics proper, whose object is, life, purity, and beatitude;
and with whom the organ of communication, or receptivity, is the feelings.
They agree, first, in relying on the immediate revelation or communication of
God to the soul; and secondly, that these communications are to be attained,
in the neglect of outward means, by quiet or passive contemplation. "The
Theosophist is one who gives a theory of God, or of the works of God, which
has not reason, but an inspiration of his own for its basis."11
"The Theosophists, neither contented with the natural light of reason, nor
with the simple doctrines of Scripture understood in their literal sense, have
recourse to an internal supernatural light superior to all other
illuminations, from which they profess to derive a mysterious and divine
philosophy manifested only to the chosen favorites of heaven."12
Mysticism not identical with the Doctrine of
Spiritual Illumination.
Mysticism, then, is not to he confounded with the
doctrine of spiritual illumination as held by all evangelical Christians. The
Scriptures clearly teach that the mere outward presentation of the truth in
the Word, does not suffice to the conversion or sanctification of men; that
the natural, or unrenewed man, does not receive the things of the Spirit of
God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them; that in
order to any saving knowledge of the truth, i. e., of such knowledge as
produces holy affections and secures a holy life, there is need of an inward
supernatural teaching of the Spirit, producing what the Scriptures call
"spiritual discernment," This supernatural teaching our Lord promised to his
disciples when He said that He would send them the Spirit of truth to dwell in
them, and to guide them into the knowledge of the truth. For this teaching the
sacred writers pray that it may be granted not to themselves only, but to all
who heard their words or read their writings. On this they depended
exclusively for their success in preaching or teaching. Hence believers were
designated as pneumatikoi,, a Spiritu Dei
illuminati, qui reguntur a Spiritu. And men of the world, unrenewed men,
are described as those who have not the Spirit. God, therefore, does hold
immediate intercourse with the souls of men. He reveals himself unto his
people, as He does not unto the world. He gives them the Spirit of revelation
in the knowledge of himself. (Eph. i. 17.) He unfolds to them his glory, and
fills them with a joy which passes understanding. All this is admitted; but
this is very different froir Mysticism. The two things, namely, spiritual
illumination and Mysticism, differ, firstly, as to their object. The object of
the inward teaching of the Spirit is to enable us to discern the truth and
excellence of what is already objectively revealed in the Bible. The
illumination claimed by the Mystic communicates truth independently of its
objective revelation. It is not intended to enable us to appreciate what we
already know, but to communicate new knowledge. It would be one thing to
enable man to discern and appreciate the beauty of a work of art placed before
his eyes, and quite another thing to give him the intuition of all possible
forms of truth and beauty, independent of everything external. So there is a
great difference between that influence which enables the soul to discern the
things "freely given to us of God" (1 Cor. ii. 12) in his Word, and the
immediate revelation to the mind of all the contents of that word, or of their
equivalents.
The doctrines of spiritual illumination and of
Mysticism differ not only in the object, but secondly, in the manner in which
that object is to be attained. The inward teaching of the Spirit is to be
sought by prayer, and the diligent use of the appointed means; the intuitions
of the Mystic are sought in the neglect of all means, in the suppression of
all activity inward and outward, and in a passive waiting for the influx of
God into the soul. They differ, thirdly, in their effects. The effect of
spiritual illumination is, that the Word dwells in us "in all wisdom and
spiritual understanding" (Col. i. 9). What dwells in the mind of the Mystic
are his own imaginings, the character of which depends on his own subjective
state; and whatever they are, they are of man and not of God.
It differs from the Doctrine of the "Leading of
the Spirit."
Neither is Mysticism to be confounded with the doctrine
of spiritual guidance. Evangelical Christians admit that the children of God
are led by the Spirit of God; that their convictions as to truth and duty,
their inward character and outward conduct, are moulded by his influence. They
are children unable to guide thelnselves, who are led by an ever-present
Father of infinite wisdom and love. This guidance is partly providential,
ordering their external circumstances; partly through the Word, which is a
lamp to their feet; and partly by the inward influence of the Spirit on the
mind. This last, however, is also through the Word, making it intelligible and
effectual; bringing it suitably to remembrance. God leads his people by the
cords of a man, i.e., in accordance with the laws of his nature. This
is very different from the doctrine that the soul, by yielding itself
passively to God, is filled with all truth and goodness; or, that in special
emergencies it is centrolled by blind, irrational impulses.
It differs from the Doctrine of "Common Grace."
Finally, Mysticism differs from the doctrine of common
graces as held by all Augustinians, and that of sufficient grace as held by
Arminians. All Christians believe that as God is everywhere present in the
material world, guiding the operation of second causes so that they secure the
results which He designs; so his Spirit is everywhere present with the minds
of men, exciting to good and restraining from evil, effectually controlling
human character and conduct, consistently with the laws of rational beings.
According to the Arminian theory this "common grace" is sufficient, if
properly cultured and obeyed, to lead men to salvation, whether Pagans,
Mohammedans, or Christians. There is little analogy, however, between this
doctrine of common, or sufficient grace, and Mysticism as it has revealed
itself in the history of the Church. The one assumes an influence of the
Spirit on all men analogous to the providential efficiency of God in nature,
the other an influence analogous to that granted to prophets and apostles,
involving both revelation and inspiration.
§ 2. Mysticism in the Early Church.
A. Montanism.
The Montanists who arose toward the close of the second
century had, in one aspect, some affinity to Mysticism. Montanus taught that
as the ancient prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah through whom new
revelations were to be made; so Christ predicted the coming of the Paraclete
through whom further communications of the mind of God were to be made to his
people. Tertullian, by whom this system was reduced to order and commended to
the higher class of minds, did indeed maintain that the rule of faith was
fixed and immutable; but nevertheless that there was need of a continued
supernatural revelation of truth, at least as to matters of duty and
discipline. This supernatural revelation was made through the Paraclete;
whether, as was perhaps the general idea among the Montanists, by
communications granted, from lime to time, to special individuals, who thereby
became Christian prophets; or by an influence common to all believers, which
however some more than others experienced and improved. The following passage
from Tertullian13 gives clearly the
fundamental principle of the system, so far as this point is concerned: "Regula
quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis et irreformabilis. . . . Hac lege
fidei manente, cetera jam disciplinae et conversationis admiittunt novitatem
correctionis; operante scilicet et proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei. . .
. Propterea Paracletum misit Dominus, ut, quoniam humana mediocritas omunia
semel capere non poterat, paulatim dirigeretur et ordinaretur et ad perfectum
perduceretur disciplina ab illo vicario Domini Spiritu Sancto. Quae est ergo
Paracleti administratio nisi haec, quod disciplina dirigitur, quod Scripturae
revelantur, quod intellectus reformatur, quod ad meliora proficitur? . . . .
Justitia primo fuit in rudimentis, natura Deum metuens; dehinc per legem et
prophetas promovit in infantiam; dehinc per evangelium efferbuit in juventutem;
nunc per Paracletum componitur in maturitatem."
The points of analogy between Montanism and Mysticism
are that both assume the insufficiency of the Scriptures and the ordinances of
the Church for the full development of the Christian life; and both assert the
necessity of a continued, supernatural, revelation from the Spirit of God. In
other respects the two tendencies were divergent. Mysticism was directed to
the inner life; Montanism to the outward. It concerned itself with the
reformation of manners and strictness of discipline. It enjoined fasts, and
other ascetic practices. As it depended on the supernatural and continued
guidance of the Spirit, it was on the one hand opposed to speculation, or the
attempt to develop Christianity by philosophy; and on the other to the
domninant authority of the bishops. Its denunciatory and exclusive spirit led
to its condemnation as heretical. As the Montanists excommunicated the Church,
the Church excommunicated them.14
B. The so-called Dionysius, the Areopagite.
Mysticism, in the common acceptation of the term, is
antagonistic to speculation. And yet they are often united. There have been
speculative or philosophical Mystics. The father indeed of Mysticism in the
Christian Church, was a philosopher. About the year A. D. 523, during the
Monothelite controversy certain writings were quoted as of authority as being
the productions of Dionysius the Areopagite. The total silence respecting them
during the preceding centuries; the philosophical views which they express;
the allusions to the state of the Church with which they abound, have produced
the conviction, universally entertained, that they were the work of some
author who lived in the latter part of the fifth century. The most learned
investigators, however, confess their inability to fix with certainty or even
with probability on any writer to whom they can be referred. Though their
authorship is unknown, their influence has been confessedly great. The works
which bear the pseudonym of Dionysius are, "The Celestial Hierarchy," "The
Terrestrial Hierarchy," "Mystical Theology," and "Twelve Epistles." Their
contents show that their author belonged to the school of the New Platonists,
and that his object was to propagate the peculiar views of that school in the
Christian Church. The writer attempts to show that the real, esoteric
doctrines of Christianity are identical with those of his own school of
philosophy. In other words, he taught New Platonism, in the terminology of the
Church. Christian ideas were entirely excluded, while the language of the
Bible was retained. Thus in our day we have had the philosophy of Schelling
and Hegel set forth in the formulas of Christian theology.
New Platonism.
The New Platonists taught that the original ground and
source of all things was simple being, without life or consciousness; of which
absolutely nothing could be known, beyond that it is. They assumed an unknown
quantity, of which nothing can be predicated. The pseudo-Dionysius called this
original ground of all things God, and taught that God was mere being without
attributes of any kind, not only unknowable by man, but of whom there was
nothing to be known, as absolute being is in the language of the modern
philosophy, -- Nothing; nothing in itself, yet nevertheless the
du,namij tw/n pa,ntwn.
The universe proceeds from primal being, not by any
exercise of conscious power or will, but by a process or emanation. The
familiar illustration is derived from the flow of light from the sun. With
this difference, however. That the sun emits light, is a prool that it is
itself luminous but the fact that intelligent beings emanate from the
"ground-being," is not admitted as proof that it is intelligent. The fact that
the air produces cheerfulness, say these philosophers, does not prove that the
atmosphere experiences joy. We can infer nothing as to the nature of the cause
from the nature of the effects.
These emanations are of different orders; decreasing in
dignity and excellence as they are distant from the primal source. The first
of these emanations is mind, nou/j, intelligence
individualized in different ranks of spiritual beings. The next, proceeding
from tbe first, is soul, which becomes individualized by organic or vital
connection with matter. There is, therefore, an intelligence of intelligences,
and also a soul of souls; hence their generic unity. Evil arises from the
connection of the spiritual with the corporeal, and yet this connection so far
as souls are concerned, is necessary to their individuality. Every soul,
therefore, is an emanation from the soul of the world, as that is from God,
through the Intelligence.
As there is no individual soul without a body, and as
evil is the necessary consequence of union with a body, evil is not only
necessarv or unavoidable, it is a good.
The end of philosophy is the immediate vision of God,
which gives the soul supreme blessedness and rest. This union with God is
attained by sinking into ourselves; by passivity. As we are a form, or mode of
God's existence, we find God in ourselves, and are consciously one with him,
when this is really apprehended; or, when we suffer God, as it were, to absorb
our individuality.
The primary emanations from the ground of all being,
which the heathen called gods (as they had gods many and lords many) the New
Platonists, spirits or intelligences; and the Gnostics, aeons; the
pseudo-Dionysius called angels. These he divided into three triads: (1.)
thrones, cherubim, and seraphim; (2.) powers, lordships, authorities; (3.)
angels, archangels, principalities. He classified the ordinances and officers
and members of the Church into corresponding triads: (1.) The sacraments, --
baptism, communion, anointing, -- these were the means of initiation or
consecration ; (2.) The initiators,-- bishops, priests, deacons; (3.) The
initiated, -- monks, the baptized, catechumens.
The terms God, sin, redemption, are retained in this
system, but the meaning attached to them was entirely inconsistent with the
sense they bear in the Bible and in the Christian Church. The pseudo-Dionysius
was a heathen philosopher in the vestments of a Christian minister. The
philosophy which he taught he claimed to be the true sense of the doctrines of
the Church, as that sense had been handed down by a secret tradition.
Notwithstanding its heathen origin and character, its influence in the Church
was great and long continued. The writings of its author were translated,
annotated and paraphrased, centuries after his death. As there is no effect
without an adequate cause, there must have been power in this system and an
adaptation to the cravings of a large class of minds.
Causes of the Influence of the Writings of the
pseudo-Dionysius.
To account for its extensive influence it may be
remarked: (1.) That it did not openly shock the faith or prejudices of the
Church. It did not denounce any received doctrine or repudiate any established
institution or ordinance. It pretended to be Christian. It undertook to give a
deeper and more correct insight into the mysteries of religion. (2.) It
subordinated the outward to the inward. Some men are satisfied with rites,
ceremonies, symbols, which may mean anything or nothing; others, with
knowledge or clear views of truth. To others, the inner life of the soul,
intercourse with God, is the great thing. To these this system addressed
itself. It proposed to satisfy this craving after God, not indeed in a
legitimate way, or by means of Gods appointment. Nevertheless it was the high
end of union with liimn that it proposed, and which it professed to secure.
(3.) This system was only one form of the doctrine which has such a
fascination for the human mind, and which underlies so many forms of religion
in every age cf the world; the doctrine, namely, that the universe is an
efflux of the life of God, -- all things flowing from him, and back again to
him from everlasting to everlasting. This doctrine quiets the conscience, as
it precludes the idea of sin; it gives the peace which flows from fatalism;
and it promises the absolute rest of unconsciousness when the individual is
absorbed in the bosom of the Infinite.15
§ 3. Mysticism during the Middle
Ages.
A. General Characteristics of this Period.
The Middle Ages embrace the period from the close of
the sixth century to the Reformation. This period is distinguished by three
marked characteristics. First, the great development of the Latin Church in
its hierarchy, its worship, and its formulated doctrines, qs well as in its
superstitions, corruptions, and power. Secondly, the extraordinary
intellectual activity awakened in the region of speculation, as manifested in
the multiplication of seats of learning, in the number and celebrity of their
teachers, and in the great multitude of students by which they were attended,
and in the interest taken by all classes in the subjects of learned
discussion. Thirdly, by a widespread and variously manifested movement of, so
to speak, the inner life of the Church, protesting against the formalism, the
corruption, and the tyranny of the external Church. This protest was made
partly openly by those whom Protestants are wont to call "Witnesses for the
Truth;" and partly within the Church itself. The opposition within the
Church manifested itself partly among the people, in the formation of
fellowships or societies for benevolent effort and spiritual culture, such as
the Beguines, the Beghards, the Lollards, and afterwards, "The Brethren of the
Common Lot;" and partly in the schools, or by the teachings of theologians.
It was the avowed aim of the theologians of this period
to justify the doctrines of the Church at the bar of reason; to prove that
what was received on authority as a matter of faith, was true as a matter of
philosophy. It was held to be the duty of the theologian to exalt faith into
knowledge. Or, as Anselm16
expresses it: "rationabili necessitate intelligere, esse oportere omnia illa,
quae nobis fides cathohica de Christo credere praecipit." Richard a St.
Victore still more strongly asserts that we are bound, "quod tenemus ex fide,
ratione apprehendere et demonstrativae certitudinis attestatione firmare."
The First Class of Mediaeval Theologians.
Of these theologians, however, there were three
classes. First, those who avowedly exalted reason above authority, and refused
to receive anything on authority which they could not for themselves, on
rational grounds, prove to be true. John Scotus Erigena (Eringeborne,
Irish-born) may be taken as a representative of this class. He not only held,
that reason and revelation, philosophy and religion, are perfectly consistent,
but that religion and philosophy are identical. "Conficitur," he says, "inde
veram philosophiam esse veram religionem conversimque veram religionem esse
veram philosophiam."17 And on the crucial
question, Whether faith precedes science, or science faith, he decided for the
latter. Reason, with him, was paramount to authority, the latter having no
force except when sustained by the former. "Auctoritas siquidem ex vera
ratione processit, ratio vero nequaquam ex auctoritate. Omnis autem auctoritas,
quae vera ratione non approbatur, infirma videtur esse. Vera autem ratio, quum
virtutibus suis rata atque immutabilis munitur, nullius auctoritatis
adstipulatione roborari indiget."18
His philosophy as developed in his work, "De Divisione Naturae," is purely
pantheistic. There is with him but one being, and everything real is thought.
His system, therefore, is nearly identical with the idealistic pantheism of
Hegel; yet he had his trinitarianism, his soteriology, and his eschatology, as
a theologian.
The Second Class.
The second and more numerous class of the mediaeval
theologians took the ground that faith in matters of religion precedes
science; that truths are revealed to us supernaturally by the Spirit of God,
which truths are to be received on the authority of the Scriptures and the
testimony of the Church. But being believed, then we should endeavor to
comprehend and to prove them; so that our conviction of their truth should
rest on rational grounds. It is very evident that everything depends on the
spirit with which this principle is applied, and on the extent to which it is
carried. In the hands of many of the schoolmen, as of the Fathers, it was
merely a form of rationalism. Many taught that while Christianity was to be
received by the people on authority as a matter of faith, it was to be
received by the cultivated as a matter of knowledge. The human was substituted
for the divine, the authority of reason for the testimony of God. With the
better class of the schoolmen the principle in question was held with many
limitations. Anselm, for example taught: (1.) That holiness of heart is the
essential condition of true knowledge. It is only so far as the truths of
religion enter into our personal experience, that we are able properly to
apprehend them. Faith, therefore, as including spiritual discernment, must
precede all true knowledge. "Qui secundum carnem vivit, carnalis sive animalis
est, de quo dicitur: animalis homo non percipit ea, quae sunt Spiritus Dei. .
. . Qui non crediderit, non intelliget, nam qui non crediderit, non experietur,
et qui expertus non fuerit, non intelliget."19
"Neque enim quaero intelligere, ut credam, sed credo, ut intelligam. Nam et
hoc credo, quia, nisi credidero, non intelligam."20
(2.) He held that rational proof was not needed as a help to faith. It was as
absurd, he said, for us to presume to add authority to the testimony of God by
our reasoning, as for a man to prop up Olympus. (3.) He taught that there are
doctrines of revelation which transcend our reason, which we cannot rationally
pretend to comprehend or prove, and which are to be received on the simple
testimony of God. "Nam Christianus per fidem debet ad intellectum proficere,
non per intellectum ad fidem accedere, aut si intelligere non valet, a fide
recedere. Sed cum ad intellectum valet pertingere, delectatur, cum vero nequit,
quod capere non potest, veneratur."21
A third class of the schoolmen, while professing to
adhere to the doctrines of the Church, consciously or unconsciously, explained
them away.
B. Mediaeval Mystics..
Mystics were to be found in all these classes, and
therefore they have been divided, as by Dr. Shedd,22into
the heretical, the orthodox, and an intermediate class, which he designates as
latitudinarian. Much to the same effect, Neudecker,23classifies
them as Theosophist, Evangelical, and Separatist. Ullmann24
makes a somewhat different classification. The characteristic common to these
classes, which differed so much from each other, was not that in all there was
a protest of the heart against the head, of the feelings against the
intellect, a reaction against the subtleties of the scholastic theologians,
for some of the leading Mystics were among the most subtle dialecticians. Nor
was it a common adherence to the Platonic as opposed to the Aristotelian
philosophy, or to realism as opposed to nominalism. But it was the belief,
that oneness with God was the great end to be desired and pursued, and that
that union was to be sought, not so much through the truth, or the Church, or
ordinances, or Christian fellowship; but by introspection, meditation,
intuition. As very different views were entertained of the nature of the
"oneness with God," which was to be sought, so the Mystics differed greatly
from each other. Some were extreme pantheists; others were devout theists and
Christians. From its essential nature, however, the tendency of Mysticism was
to pantheism. And accordingly undisguised pantheism was not only taught by
some of the most prominent Mystics, but prevailed extensively among the
people.
Pantheistic tendency of Mysticism.
It has already been remarked, that the system of the
pseudo-Dionysius, as presented in his "Mystical Theology" and other writings,
was essentially pantheistic. Those writings were translated by Scotus Erigena,
himself the most pronounced pantheist of the Middle Ages. Through the joint
influence of these two men, a strong tendency to pantheism was developed to a
greater or less degree among the mediaeval Mystics. Even the associations
among the people, such as the Beghards and Lollards, although at first
exemplary and useful, by adopting a system of mystic pantheism became entirely
corrupt.25
Believing themselves to be modes of the divine existence, all they did God
did, and all they felt inclined to do was an impulse from God, and therefore
nothing could be wrong. In our own day the same principles have led to the
same consequences in one wing of the German school of philosophy.
It was not only among the people and in these secret
fellowships that this system was adopted. Men of the highest rank in the
schools, and personally exemplary in their deportment, became the advocates of
the theory which lay at the foundation of these practical evils. Of these
scholastic pantheistical Mystics, the most distinguished and influential was
Henry Eckart, whom some modern writers regard "as the deepest thinker of his
age, if not of any age." Neither the time nor the place of his birth is known.
He first appears in Paris as a Dominican monk and teacher. In 1304 he was
Provincial of the Dominicans in Saxony. Soon after he was active in Strasburg
as a preacher. His doctrines were condemned as heretical, although he denied
that he had in any respect departed from the doctrines of the Church. From the
decision of his archbishop and his provincial council, Eckart appealed to the
Pope, by whom the sentence of condemnation was confirmed. This decision,
however, was not published until 1329, when Eckart was already dead. It is not
necessary here to give the details of his system. Suffice it to say, that he
held that God is the only being; that the universe is the self-manifestation
of God; that the highest destiny of man is to come to the consciousness of his
identity with God; that that end is to be accomplished partly by philosophical
abstraction and partly by ascetic self renunciation.
"Although union with God is effected mainly by thinking
and consciousness, still it also requires a corresponding act of the will,
something practical, such as self-denial and privation, by which man rises
above all that is finite. Not only must he lay aside all created things, the
world and earthly good, and mortify desire, but more than all he must resign
his 'I,' reduce himself to nothing, and become what he was before he issued
forth into this temporal state. Nay, man must rise above the chief good, above
virtue, piety, blessedness, and God himself, as things external and superior
to his spirit, and it is only when he has thus annihilated self, and all that
is not God within him, that nothing remains except the pure and simple divine
essence, in which all division is brought into absolute unity."26
Another distinguished and influential writer of the
same class was John Ruysbroek, born 1293, in a village of that name not far
from Brussels. Having entered the service of the Church he devoted himself to
the duties of a secular priest until his sixtieth year, when he became prior
of a newly instituted monastery. He was active and faithful, gentle and
devout. Whether he was a theist or a pantheist is a matter of dispute. His
speculative views were formed more or less under the influence of the writings
of the pseudo-Dionysius and of Eckart. Gerson, himself a Mystic, objected to
his doctrines as pantheistic; and every one acknowledges that there are not
only forms of expression but also principles to be found in his writings which
imply the pantheistic theory. He speaks of God as the super-essential being
including all beings. All creatures, he taught, were in God, as thoughts
before thieir creation. "God saw and recognized them in himself, as somehow,
but not wholly, different from himself, for what is in God, is God." "In the
act of self-depletion, the spirit loses itself in the enjoyment of love, and
imbibes directly the brightness of God, yea, becomes the very brightness which
it imbibes. All who are raised to the sublimity of this contemplative life are
one with deifying (deifica) brightness, and become one and the same light as
that which they behold. To such a height is the spirit elevated above itself,
and made one with God, in respect that in the oneness of that living original
in which, according to its uncreated being, it possesses itself, it enjoys and
contemplates boundless treasures in the same manner as God himself." Ullmann,
who quotes these and similar passages, still maintains that Ruysbroek was a
theist, because, as he says, Ruysbroek "distinctly recognizes not only the
immanence of God, but what no pantheist can do, his transcendence." Moreover,
he "too frequently and too solicitously avers that, in the oneness of the
contemplative man with God, he still recognizes a difference between the two,
to permit us to ascribe to him the doctrine of an absolute solution of the
individual into the Divine substance."27 A
man may aver a difference between the waves and the ocean, between the leaves
and the tree, and yet in both cases assert a substantial unity. It is true
that no one can intelligently affirm the transcendence of God, and still hold
the extreme form of pantheism which makes the world the existence-form of God,
his whole intelligence, power, and life. But he may be a Monist. He may
believe that there is but one Being in the universe, that everything is a form
of God, and all life the life of God. Pantheism is Protean. Some moderns speak
of a Christian Pantheism. But any system which hinders our saying "Thou," to
God, is fatal to religion.
Evangelical Mystics.
Bernard of Clairvaux, Hugo and Richard of St. Victor,
Gersorn, Thomas a Kempis and others, are commonly referred to the class of
evangelical Mystics. These eminent and influential men differed much from each
other, but they all held union within God, not in the Scriptural, but in the
mystical sense of that term, as the great object of desire. It was not that
they held that "the beatific vision of God," the intuition of his glory, which
belongs to heaven, is attainable in this world and attainable by abstraction,
ecstatic apprehension, or passive reception, but that the soul becomes one
with God, if not in substance, yet in life. These men, however, were great
blessings to the Church. Their influence was directed to the preservation of
the inward life of religion in opposition to the formality and ritualism which
then prevailed in the Church; and thus to free the conscience from subjection
to human authority. The writings of Bernard are still held in high esteem, and
"The Imitation of Christ," by Thomas a Kempis, has diffused itself like
incense through all the aisles and alcoves of the Universal Church.28
§ 4. Mysticism at, and after the
Reformation.
A. Effect of the Reformation on the Popular
Mind.
Such a great and general movement of the public mind as
occurred during the sixteenth century, when the old foundations of doctrine
and order in the Church, were overturned, could hardly fail to be attended by
irregularities and extravacancies in the inward and outward life of the
people. There are two principles advanced, both Scriptural and both of the
last importance, which are specially liable to abuse in times of popular
excitement.
The first is, the right of private judgment. This, as
understood by the Reformers, is the right of every man to decide what a
revelation made by God to him, requires him to believe. It was a protest
against the authority assumed by the Church (i. e. the Bishops), of
deciding for the people what they were to believe. It was very natural that
the fanatical, in rejecting the authority of the Church, should reject all
external authority in matters of religion. They understood by the right of
private judgment, the right of every man to determine what he should believe
from the operations of his own mind and from his own inward experience,
independently of the Scriptures. But as it is palpably absurd to expect, on
such a subject as religion, a certainty either satisfactory to ourselves or
authoritative for others, from our own reason or feelings, it was inevitable
that these subjective convictions should be referred to a supernatural source.
Private revelations, an inward light, the testimony of the Spirit, came to be
exalted over the authority of the Bible.
Secondly, the Reformers taught that religion is a
matter of the heart, that a man's acceptance with God does not depend on his
membership in any external society, on obedience to its officers, and on
sedulous observance of its rites and ordinances; but on the regeneration of
his heart, and his personal faith in the Son of God, manifesting itself in a
holy life. This was a protest against the fundamental principle of Romanism,
that all within the external organization which Romanists call the Church, are
saved, and all out of it are lost. It is not a matter of surprise that evil
men should wrest this principle, as they do all other truths, to their own
destruction. Because religion does not consist in externals, many rushed to
the conclusion that externals, -- the Church, its ordinances, its officers,
its worship, -- were of no account. These principles were soon applied beyond
the sphere of religion. Those who regarded them themselves as the organs of
God, emancipated from the authority of the Bible and exalted above the Church,
came to claim exemption from the authority of the State. To this outbreak the
grievous and long-continued oppression of the peasantry grcatly contributed,
so that this spirit of fanaticism and revolt rapidly spread over all Germany,
and into Switzerland and Holland.
The Popular Disorders not the Effects of the
Reformation.
The extent to which these disorders spread, and the
rapidity with which they diffused themselves, show that they were not the mere
outgrowth of the Refommation. The principles avowed by the Reformers, and the
relaxation of papal authority occasioned by the Reformation, served but to
inflame the elements which had for years been slumbering in the minds of the
people. The innumerous associations and fellowships, of which mention was made
in the preceding section, had leavened the public mind with the principles of
panthieistic Mysticism, which were the prolific source of evil. Men who
imagined themselves to be forms in which God existed and acted, were not
likely to be subject to any authority human or divine, nor were they apt to
regard anything as sinful which they felt inclined to do.
These men also had been brought up under the Papacy.
According to the papal theory, especially as it prevailed during the Middle
Ages, the Church was a theocracy, whose representatives were the subjects of a
constant inspiration rendering them infallible as teachers and absolute as
rulers. All who opposed the Church were rebels against God, whom to destroy
was a duty both to God and man. These ideas Munzer and his followers applied
to themselves. They were the true Church. They were inspired. They were
entitled to determine what is true in matters of doctrine. They were entitled
to rule with absolute authority in church and state. All who opposed them,
opposed God, and ought to be exterminated. Munzer died upon the scaffold: thus
was fulfilled anew our Lord's declaration, "Those who take the sword, shall
perish by the sword."
B. Mystics among the Reformers.
Few of the theologians contemporary with Luther took
any part in this fanatical movement. To a certain extent this however was done
by Carlstadt (Bodenstein), archdeacon and afterwards professor of theology at
Wittenberg. At first he cooperated zealously with the great Reformer, but when
Storch and Stubener claiming to be prophets, came to Wittenberg during
Luther's confinement at Wartburg, and denounced learning and Church
institutions, and taught that all reliance was to be placed on the inward
light, or supernatural guidance of the Spirit, Carlstadt gave them his support
and exhorted the students to abandon their studies and to betake themselves to
manual labor. Great disorder following these movements, Luther left his place
of seclusion, appeared upon the scene, and succeeded in allaying the tumult.
Carlstadt then withdrew from Wittenberg, and ultimately united himself with
Schnwenkfeld, a more influential opponent of Luther and who was equally imbued
with the spirit of Mysticism.
Sckwenkfeld.
Schwenkfeld, a nobleman born 1490, in the principality
of Lignitz, in Lower Silesia, was a man of great energy and force of
character, exemplary in his conduct, of extensive learning and indefatigable
diligence. He at first took an active part in promoting the Reformation, and
was on friendly terms with Luther, Moiancthon, and the other leading
Reformers. Being a man not only of an independent way of thinking, but
confident and zealous in maintaining his peculiar opinions, he soon separated
himself from other Protestants and passed his whole life in controversy;
condemned by synods and proscribed by the civil authorities, he was driven
from city to city, until his death, which occurred in 1561.
That Schwenkfeld differed not only from the Romanists,
but from Lutherans and Reformed on all the great doctrines then in
controversy, is to be referred to the fact that he held, in common with the
great body of the Mystics of the Middle Ages, that union or oneness with God,
not in nature or chaaracter only, but also in being or substance, was the one
great desideratum and essential condition of holiness and felicity. To avoid
the pantheistic doctrines into which the majority of the Mystics were led, he
held to a form of dualism. Creatures exist out of God, and are due to the
exercise of his power. In them there is nothing of the substance of God, and
therefore nothing really good. With regard to men, they are made good and
blessed by communicating to them the substance of God. This communication is
made through Christ. Christ is not, even as to his human nature, a creature.
His body and soul were formed out of the substance of God. While on earth, in
his state of humiliation, this substantial unity of his humanity with God, was
undeveloped and unrevealed. Since his exaltation it is completely deified, or
lost in the divine essence. It followed from these principles, First, That the
external church, with its ordinances and means of grace, was of little
importance. Especially that the Scriptures are not, even instrumentally, the
source of the divine life. Faith does not come by hearing, but from the Christ
within; i. e. from the living substance of God communicated to the
soul. This communication is to be sought by abnegation, renunciation of the
creature, by contemplation and prayer. Secondly, as to the sacrament of the
supper, which then was the great subject of controversy, Schwenkfeld stood by
himself. Not admitting that Christ had any material body or blood, he could
not admit that the bread and wine were transubstantiated into his body and
blood, as Romanists teach; nor that his body and blood were focally present in
the sacrament, in, with, and under the bread and wine, as Luther held; nor
could he admit the dynamic presence of Christ's body, as taught by Calvin; nor
that the Lord's Supper was merely a significant and commemorative ordinance,
as Zwingle taught. He held his own doctrine. He transposed the words of
Christ. Instead of "This (bread) is my body," he said, the true meaning and
intent of Christ was, "My body is bread;" that is, as bread is the staff and
source of life to the body, so my body, formed of the essence of God, is the
life of the soul.
A third inference from Schnwenkfeld's fundamental
principle was that the redemption of the soul is purely subjective; something
wrought in the soul itself. He denied justification by faith as Luther taught
that doctrine, and which Luther regarded as the life of the Church. He said
that we are justified not by what Christ has done for us, but by what He does
within us. All we need is the communication of the life or substance of Christ
to the soul. With him, as with Mystics generally, the ideas of guilt and
expiation were ignored.
Later Mystics.
The succession of mystical writers was kept up by such
men as Paracelsus, Weigel, Jacob Boehmne, and others. The first named was a
physician and chemist, who combined natural philosophy and alchemy with his
theosophy. He was born in 1493 and died in 1541. Weigel, a pastor, was born in
Saxony in 1533, and died in 1588. His views were formed under the influence of
Tauler, Schwenkfeld, and Paracelsus. He taught, as his predecessors had done,
that the inner word, and not the Scriptures, was the source of true knowledge,
that all that God creates is God himself, and that all that is good in man is
of the substance of God. The most remarkable writer of this class was Jacob
Boehme, who was born near Gorlitz in Silesia, in 1575. His parents were
peasants, and he himself a shoemaker. That such a man should write books which
have proved a mine of thoughts to Schelling, Hegel, and Coleridge, as well as
to a whole class of theologians, is decisive evidence of his extraordinary
gifts. In character he was mild, gentle, and devout; and although denounced as
a heretic, he constantly professed his allegiance to the faith of the Church.
He regarded himself as having received in answer to prayer, on three different
occasions. commnunications of divine light and knowledge which he was impelled
to reveal to others. He did not represent the primordial being as without
attributes or qualities of which nothing could be predicated, but as the seat
of all kinds of forces seeking development. What the Bible teaches of the
Trinity, he understood as an account of the development of the universe out of
God and its relation to him. He was a theosophist in one sense, in which
Vaughan29 defines the term, "One who gives
you a theory of God or of the works of God, which has not reason, but an
inspiration of his own for its basis." "The theosophists," says Fleming,30
"are a school of philosophers who mix enthusiasm with observation, alchemy
with theology, metaphysics with medicine, and clothe the whole with a form of
mystery and inspiration."31
§ 5. Quietism.
A. Its general character.
Tholuck32says
"There is a law of seasons in the spiritual, as well as in the physical world,
in virtue of which when the time has come, without apparent connection,
similar phenomena reveal themselves in different places. As towards the end of
the fifteenth century an ecclesiastical-doctrinal reformatory movement passed
over the greater part of Europe, in part without apparent connection; so at
the end of the seventeenth a mystical and spiritual tendency was almost as
extensively manifested. In Germany, it took the form of Mysticism and Pietism;
in England, of Quakerism; in France, of Jansenism and Mysticism; and in Spain
and Italy, of Quietism." This movement was in fact what in our day would be
called a revival of religion. Not indeed in a form free from grievous errors,
but nevertheless it was a return to the religion of the heart, as opposed to
the religion of forms. The Mystics of this period, although they constantly
appealed to the mediaeval Mystics, even to the Areopagite, and although they
often used the same forms of expression, yet they adhered much more faithfully
to Scriptural doctrines and to the faith of the Church. They did not fall into
Pantheism, or believe in the absorption of the soul into the substance of God.
They held, however, that the end to be attained was union with God. By this
was not meant what Christians generally understand by that term; congeniality
with God, delight in his perfections, assurance of his love, submission to his
will, perfect satisfaction in the enjoymemit of his favour. It was something
more than all this, something mystical and therefore inexplicable; a matter of
feeling not something to be understood or explained; a state in which all
thought, all activity was suspended; a state of perfect quietude in which the
soul is lost in God, -- an "ecoulement et liquefaction de l'ame en Dien," as
it is expressed by St. Francis de Sales. This state is reached by few. It is
to be attained not by the use of the means of grace or ordinances of the
Church. The soul should be raised above the need of all such aids. It rises
even above Christ, insomuch that it is not He whom the soul seeks, nor God in
him; but God as God; the absolute, infinite God. The importance of the
Scriptures, of prayer, of the sacraments, and of the truth concerning Christ,
was not denied; but all these were regarded as belonging to the lower stages
of the divine life. Nor was this rest and union with God to be attained by
meditation; for meditation is discursive. It implies an effort to bring truth
before the mind, and fixing the attention upon it. All conscious self-activity
must be suspended in order to this perfect rest in God. It is a state in which
the soul is out of itself; a state of ecstasy, according to the etymological
meaning of the word.
This state is to be reached in the way prescribed by
the older Mystics; first, by negation or abstraction; that is, the abstraction
of the soul from everything out of God, from the creature, from all interest,
concern, or impression from sensible objects. Hence the connection between
Mysticism, in this form, and asceticism. Not only must the soul become thus
abstracted from the creature, but it must be dead to self. All regard to self
must be lost. There can be no prayer, for prayer is asking something fom self;
no thanksgiving, for thanksgiving implies gratitude for good done to self.
Self must be lost. There must be no preference for heaven over hell. One of
the points most strenuously insisted upon was a willingness to be damned, if
such were the will of God. In the controversy between Fenelon and Bossuet, the
main question concerned disintenested love, whether in loving God the soul
must be raised above all regard to its own holiness and happiness. This pure
or disinterested love justifies, or renders righteous in the sight of God.
Although the Mystics of this period were eminently pure as well as devout,
they nevertheless sometimes laid down principles, or at least used
expressions, which gave their enemies a pretext for charging them with
Antinomianisin. It was said, that a soul filled with this love, or reduced to
this entire negation of self, cannot sin; "sin is not in, but outside of him
:" which was made to mean, that nothing was sin to the perfect. It is an
instructive psychological fact that when men attempt or pretend to rise above
the law of God, they sink below it; that Perfectionism has so generally led to
Antinomianism.
B. Leaders of this Movement.
The principal persons engaged in promoting this
remarkable religious movement were Molinos, Madame Guyon, and Archhishop
Fenelon. Michael Molinos, born 1640, was a Spanish priest. About 1670 he
became a resident of Rome, where he gained a great reputation for piety and
mildness, and great influence from his position as confessor to many families
of distinction. He enjoyed the friendship of the highest authorities in the
Church, including several of tile cardinals, and the Pope, Innocent XI.,
himself. In 1675 he published his "Spiritual Guide," in which the principles
above stated were presented. Molinos did not claim originality, but professed
to rely on the Mystics of the Middle Ages, several of whom had already been
canonized by the Church. This, however, did not save him from persecution. His
first trial indeed before the Inquisition resulted in his acquittal. But
subsequently, through the influence of the Jesuits and of the court of Louis
XIV., he was, after a year's imprisonment, condemned. Agreeably to his
principle of entire subjection to the Church, he retracted his errors, but
failed to secure the confidence of his judges. He died in 1697. His principal
work, "Manuductio Spiritualis," or Spiritual Guide, was translated into
different languages, and won for him many adhenents in every part of the
Catholic world. When he was imprisoned, it is said, that twenty thousand
letters from all quarters, and many of them from persons of distinction, were
found among his papers, assuring him of the sympathy of their authors with him
in his spirit and views. This is proof that there were at that time thousands
in the Romish Church who had not bowed the knee to the Baal of formalism.
Madame Guyon.
The most prominent and influential of the Quietists, as
they were called, was Madame Guyon, born 1648 and died 1717. She belonged to a
rich and noble family; was educated in a cloister, married at sixteen to a man
of rank and wealth and of three times her age; faithful and devoted, but
unhappy in her domestic relations; adhering zealously to her Church, she
passed a life of incessant labour, and that, too, embittered by persecution.
When still in the cloister she came under the influence of the writings of St.
Francis de Sales, which determined her subsequent course. Enthusiastic in
temperament, endowed with extraordinary gifts, she soon came to regard herself
as the recipient of visions, revelations, and inspirations by which she was
impelled to write, and, in the first instance, to devote herself to the
conversion of Protestants. Failing in this, she considered it her vocation to
become the mother of spiritual children, by bringing them to adopt her views
of the inner life. To this object she devoted herself with untiring energy and
great success, her adherents, secret and avowed, being numbered by thousands,
or, as she supposed, by millions. She thus drew upon herself, although devoted
to the Church, the displeasure of the authorities, and was imprisoned for
seven years in the Bastile and other prisons in France. The latter years of
her life she spent in retirement in the house of her daughter, burdened withn
physical infirmities, hearing mass every day in her private chapel and
communicating every other day. Her principal works were, "La Bible avec des
Explications et Reflexions, qui regardent la Vie Interieure," "Moyen court et
tres-facile de faire Oraison." This little work excited great attention and
great opposition. She was obliged to defend it in an "Apologie du Moyen
Court," in 1690, and "Justifications" in 1694, and in 1695 she was forced to
retract thirty-five propositions selected therefrom. She published an
allegorical poem under the title "Les Torrens." Her minor poetic pieces called
"Poesies Spirituelles," in four volumes, are greatly admired for the genius
which they display.
Archbishop Fenelon, one of the greatest lights of the
Gallican Church, espoused the cause of Madame Guyon, and published, 1697,
"Explication des Maximnes des Saints sur la Vie Interieure." As the title
intimates, the principles of this book are derived from the earlier Mystics,
and specially from the latest of the saints, St. Francis de Sales, who was
canonized in 1665, only thirty-three years after his death. Although Fenelon
carefully avoided the extravagances of the Mystics of his own day, and
althouoh he taught nothing which men venerated in the Church had not taught
before him, his book forfeited for him the favour of the court, and was
finally condemned by the authorities at Rome. To this condemnation he
submitted with the greatest docility. He not only made no defence, but read
the brief of condemnation in his own pulpit, and forbade his book being read
within his diocese. To this his conscience constrained him, although he
probably did not change his views. As the Pope decided against him he was
willing to admit that what he said was wrong, and yet what he intended to say
he still held to be right.
§ 6. The Quakers or Friends.
This widely extended and highly respected body of
professing Christians constitute the most permanent and best organized
representatives of the principles of Mysticism which have appeared in the
Church. They have existed as an organized society nearly two centuries and a
half, and number in Europe and America several hundred thousands.
A. Their Origin and Early History.
They took their origin and name from George Fox, who
was born at Drayton, Leicestershire, England, in 1624. He received only the
rudiments of an English education, and was by trade a shoemaker. From boyhood
he was remarkable for his quiet, secluded habits. He devoted his leisure to
the reading of the Scriptures and meditatioin. The age in which he lived was
one of corruption in the Church and agitation in the State. He was so
impressed by the evils which he saw around him that he lost confidence in the
teachers of religion and in the ordinances of the church. At last he felt
himself called of God, by direct revelation and inspiration, to denounce the
existing Church, its organization and officers, and to proclaim a new and
spiritual dispensation. This dispensation was to be new only relatively to
what had long existed. It was designed as a restoration of the apostolic age,
when the church was guided and extended by the Spirit, without the
intervention of the written Word, or, as Fox and his followers maintained, of
a special order of ministers, but every man and every woman spake as the
Spirit gave them utterance.33
They were called Quakers either because they themselves
trembled when under the influence of the Spirit, or because they were in the
habit of calling on those whom they addressed to quake in fear of the judgment
of God. The designation has long ceased to be appropriate, as they are
characteristically quiet in their worship, and gentle toward those who are
without. They call themselves Friends because opposed to violence, contention,
and especially to war. At first, however, they were chargeable with many
irregularities, which, in connection with their refusing to pay tithes, to
take oaths, and to perform military service, gave pretext to frequent and long
continued persecutions.
The Quakers were at first, as a class, illiterate, but
men from the educated classes soon joined them, and by their influence the
irregularities connected with the movement were corrected, and the society
reduced to a regularly organized form. The most prominent of these men were
George Keith, Samuel Fisher, and William Penn. The last named, the son of a
British admiral, proved his sincerity by the sacrifices and sufferings to
which his adherence to a sect, then despised and persecuted, subjected him.
From the influence which he possessed, as the friend and favorite of James II,
he was able to do much for his brethren, and having received a grant from the
crown, of what is now Pennsylvania, he transported a colony of them to this
country and founded one of the most important States of the American Union.
The man, however, who did most to reduce the principles of George Fox to
order, and to commend them to the religious and literary public, was Robert
Barclay. Barclay was a member of a prominent Scottish family, and received the
benefit of an extended and varied education. He was born in 1648, and died in
1690. His principal work, "Theologiae Christianae Apologia," is an exposition
of fifteen theses which he had previously written and printed under the title,
"Theses Theologicae onnnibus Clericis et praesertim universis Doctoribus,
Professoribus et Studiosis Theologiae in Academiis Europae versantibus sive
Pontificis sive Protestantibus oblatae."
B. Their Doctrines.
It is impossible to give a satisfactory view of the
doctrines of the Quakers. They have no authoritative creed or exposition of
doctrine which all who call themselves Quakers acknowledge. Their most
prominent writers differ in their views on many important points. The opinions
of no one, nor of several authors, can be fairly taken as representing the
views of the Society. There are in fact three classes of Quakers.
First. Those who call themselves orthodox, and who
differ very little from the great body of evangelical Christians. To this
belongs the great majority of the Society both in this country and in Great
Britain. This appears from the testimonies repeatedly issued by the "Yearly
Meetings," the representative bodies of the Society. This is a much more
satisfactory witness of the general faith of the body than the declarations of
individual writers, however eminent, for which the Society is not responsible.
A very clear and comprehensive summary of the doctrine of Friends is to be
found in the "History of Religious Denominations in the United States,"
compiled by I. Daniel Rupp. The articles in this work were written by eminent
men belonging to the several denominations whose views are represented. That
which relates to the Quakers was written by the late Thomas Evans, a prominent
minister of the Society, and a truly representative man. Without referring to
the peculiar doctrines of the Society, the following extracts show how near
the orthodox Quakers (i.e., the Society itself, as represented in its
yearly meetings) come to the common faith of Protestant churches.
Doctrines of the Orthodox Friends.
1. As to God, it is said, Quakers "Believe in one only
wise, omnipotent, and everlasting God, the creator and upholder of all things
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,
the mediator between God and man; and in the Holy Spirit which proceedeth from
the Father and the Son; one God blessed forever. In expressing their views
relative to the awful and mysterious doctrine of "the Three that bear record
in heaven," they have carefully avoided the use of unscriptural terms,
invented to define Him who is undefinable, and have scrupulously adhered to
the safe and simple language of Holy Scripture, as contained in Matt. xxviii.
18, 19."
2. As to the person and work of Christ, "They own and
believe in Jesus Christ, the beloved and only begotten Son of God, who was
conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin Mary. . . . They believe
that He alone is the Redeemer and Saviour of man, the captain of salvation,
who saves from sin as well as from hell and the wrath to come, and destroys
the works of the devil. He is the seed of the woman that bruises the serpent's
head; even Christ Jesus, the Alpha and Omega, the first and last. He is, as
the Scriptures of truth say of him, our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification,
and redemption, neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other
name under heaven given among men whereby we may be saved."
"The Society of Friends have uniformly declared their
belief in the divinity and manhood of the Lord Jesus: that He was both true
God and perfect man, and that his sacrifice of himself upon the cross was a
propitiation and atonement for the sins of the whole world, and that the
remission of sins which any partake of, is only in, and by virtue of,
that most satisfactory sacrifice."
3. As to the Holy Ghost, "Friends believe in the Holy
Spirit, or Comforter, the promise of the Father, whom Christ declared he would
send in his name, to lead and guide his followers, into all truth, to teach
them all things, and to bring all things to their remembrance. . . . They
believe that the saving knowledge af God and Christ cannot be attained in any
other way than by the revelation of this Spirit; -- for the Apostle says,
'What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?
Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have
received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we
might know the things which are freely given to us of God. If, therefore, the
things which properly appertain to man cannot be discerned by any lower
principle than the spirit of man; those things which properly relate to God
and Christ, cannot be known by any power inferior to that ot the holy Spirit."
4. As to man, "They believe that man was created in the
image of God, capable of understanding the divine law, and of molding
communion with his Maker. Through transgression he fell from this blessed
state, and lost the heavenly image. His posterity come into the world in the
image of the earthly man; and, until renewed by the quickenning and
regenerating power of the heavenly man, Chrnist Jesus, manifested in time
soul, they are fallen, degenerated, and dead to the divine life in which Adam
originally stood, and are subject to the power, nature, and seed of the
serpent; and not only their words and deeds, but their imaginations, are evil
perpetually in the sight of God. Man, therefore, in this state can know
nothing aright concerning God; his thoughts and conceptions of spiritual
things, until he is disjoined from this evil seed and united to the divine
light, Christ Jesus, are unprofitable to himself and to others."
5. As to the futume state, "The Society of Friends
believe that there will be a resurrection both of the righteous and the
wicked; the one to eternal life and blessedness, and the other to everlasting
misery and torment, agreeably to Matt. xxv. 31-46; John v. 25-30; 1 Cor. xv.
12-58. That God will judge the world by that man whom He hath ordained, even
Christ Jesus the Lord, who will render unto every man according to his works."
6. As to the Scriptures, "The religious Society of
Friends has always believed that the Holy Scriptures were written by divine
inspiration, and contain a declaration of all the fundamental doctrines and
principles relating to eternal life and salvation, and that whatsoever doctine
or practice is contrary to them, is to be rejectecd as false and erroneous;
that they are a declaration of the mind and will of God, in and to the several
ages in which they were written and are obligatory on us, and are to be read,
believed, and fulfilled by the assistance of divine grace. . . . It looks upon
them as the only fit outward judge and test of controversies among Christians,
and is very willing that all its doctrines and practices should be tried by
them, freely admitting that whatsoever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which
is contrary to the Scriptures, be condemned as a delusion of the devil."
It thus appears that the orthodox Frienids are in
sympathy, on all fundamental doctrines, with the great body of their fellow
Christians.
Heterodox Friends.
Secondly. There is a class calling themselves Friends,
and retaining the organization of the Society, and its usages as to dress,
language, and mode of worship, who are really Deists. They admit of no higher
authority, in matters of religion, than the natural reason and conscience of
man, and hold little if anything as true beyond the truths of natural
religion. This class has been disowned by the Society in its representative
capacity.
Thirdly. There is a third class which does not
constitute an organized or separate body, but includes men of very different
views. As has been already remarked, great diversity of opinion existed among
the Quakers, especially during the early period of their history. This
diversity related to the common doctrines of Christianity, to the nature of
the inward guiding light in which all professed to believe, and to the
authority due to the sacred Scriptures. Some explicitly denied the doctrine of
the Trinity and the satisfaction of Christ; some seemed to ignore the
historical Christ altogether, and to refer everything to the Christ within.
Others, while admitting the historical verity of the life of Christ, and of
his work on earth, regarded his redemption as altogether subjective. He saves
us not by what He has done for us, but exclusively by what He does in us.
This, as we have seen, is the characteristic tendency of Mysticism in all its
modifications.
C. The Doctrine of Friends as to the
Inward Light given to all Men.
Still greater diversity of views prevailed as to the
nature of the inward light which constitutes the distinguishing doctrine of
the Society. The orthodox Quakers on this subject, in the first place,
carefully distinguish this "light" from the natural reason and conscience of
men; and also from spiritual discernmnent, or that inward work of the Spirit,
which all Christians acknowledge, by which the soul is enabled to know "the
things of the Spirit" as they are revealed in the Scriptures, and without
which there can be no saving faith, and no holiness of heart or life. This
spiritual illumination is peculiar to the the people of God; the inward light,
in which the Quakers believe, is common to all men. The design and effect of
the "inward light" are the communication of new truth or of truth not
objectively revealed, as well as the spiritual discernment of the truths of
Scripture. The design and effect of spiritual illumination are the proper
apprehension of truth already speculatively known.
Secondly. By the inner light the orthodox Quakers
understand the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit, concerning which
they teach,-- (1.) That it is given to all men. (2.) That it not only
convinces of sin, and enables the soul to apprehend aright the truths of
Scripture, but also communicates a knowledge of "the mysteries of salvation."
"A manifestation of this Spirit they believe is given to every man to profit
withal; that it convicts of sin, and, as attended to, gives power to the soul
to overcome and forsake it; it opens the mind to the mysteries of salvation,
enables it savingly to understand the truths recorded in the Holy Scriptures,
and gives it the living, practical, and heartfelt experience of those things
which pertain to its everlasting welfare." "He hath communicated a measure of
the light of his own Son, a measure of the grace of the Holy Spirit -- by
which he invites, calls, exhorts, and strives with every man, in order to save
him; which light or grace, as it is received and not resisted, works the
salvation of all, even of those who are ignorant of Adam's fall, and of the
death and sufferings of Christ; both by bringing them to a sense of their own
misery, and to be sharers of the sufferings of Christ, inwardly; and by making
them partakers of his resurrection, in becoming holy, pure, and righteous, and
recovered out of their sins."34
Thirdly. The orthodox Friends teach concerning this
inward light, as has been already shown, that it is subordinate to the Holy
Scriptures, inasmuch as the Scriptures are the infallible rule of faith and
practice, and everything contrary thereto is to be rejected as false and
destructive.
Barclay's Views.
While such are the views of the orthodox FTiends, it
must be admitted that many hold a different doctrine. This is true not only of
those whom the Society has disowned, but of many men most prominent in their
history. This difference relates both to what this light is, and to its
authority. As to the former of these points the language employed is so
diverse, and so figurative, that it is difficult to determine its real
meaning. Some of the early Quakers spoke as though they adopted the doctrine
of the earlier Mystics, that this inward principle was God himself, the divine
substance. Others speak of it as Christ, or even the body of Christ, or his
life. Others as "a seed," which is declared to be no part of the nature of
man; no remains of the image of God in which Adam was created; neither is it
the substance of God. Nevertheless, it is declared to be "a spiritual
substance," in which the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are present. This seed
comes from Christ, and is communicated to every man. In some it lies as a seed
upon a rock, which never shows any sign of life. But when the soul receives a
visitation of the Spirit, if his influence be not resisted, that seed is
vivified, and develops into holiness of heart and life; by which the soul is
purified and justified. We are not justified by our works. Everything is due
to Christ. He is both "the giver and the gift." Nevertheless our justification
consists in this subjective change.35
A distinction is made between a twofold redemption; the one "performed and
accomplished by Christ for us in his crucified body without us; the other is
the redemption wrought by Christ in us. "The first is that whereby a man, as
he stands in the fall, is put in a capacity of salvation, and hath conveyed
unto him a measure of that power, virtue, spirit, life, and grace that was in
Christ Jesus, which, as the free gift of God, is able to counterbalance,
overcome, and root out the evil seed, wherewith we are naturally, as in the
fall, leavened. The second is that whereby we witness and know this pure and
perfect redemptioin in ourselves, purifying, cleansing, and redeeming us from
the power of corruption, and bringing us into unity, favour, and friendshnip
with God."36
With regard to the authority of this inward light,
while the orthodox make it subordinate to the Scriptures, many of the early
Friends made the written, subordinate to the inner, word; and others, as
Barclay himself, make the two coordinate. Although in this matter he is hardly
consistent with himself. He expressly denies that the Scriptures are to us
"the fountain" of truth; that they are "the principal ground of all truth and
knowledge, or yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners." They are,
however, "to be esteemed a secondary role subordinate to the Spirit."
Nevertheless, he teaches with equal plainness that what "cannot be proved by
Scripture, is no necessary article of faith."37
Again, he says: We are "willing to admit it as a positive and certain maxim,
that whatsoever any do, pretending to the Spirit, which is contrary to the
Scriptures, be accounted and reckoned a delusion of the devil."38
He "freely subscribes to that saying, Let him that preacheth any other gospel
than that which hath already been preached by the Apostles, and according to
the Scriptures, be accursed."39
We look on the Scriptures, he says, "as the only fit outward judge of
controversies among Christians, and that whatsoever doctrine is contrary unto
their testimony, may therefore justly be rejected as false."40
His whole book, therefore, is an effort to prove from Scripture all the
peculiar doctrines of Quakerism.
His theory is, (1.) That all men since the fall are in
a state of spiritual death from which they are utterly unable to deliver
themselves. He is severe in his denunciation of all Pelagian and semi-Pelagian
doctrine. (2.) That God determined, through his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, to
make provision for the salvation of all men. (3.) The work of Christ secures
the opportunity and means of salvation for every man (4.) Tlnrough him and for
his sake "a seed" is given to every man which, under the influence of the
Spirit, may be developed into righteousness and holiness, restoring the soul
to the image and fellowship of God. (5.) To every man is granted "a day of
visitation" in which the Spirit comes to him and exerts an influence which, if
not resisted, vivifies this divine seed, and thus gives the opportunity of
being saved (6.) The measure of this divine influence is not the same in all
cases. In some it is irresistible, in others, not. In some it is as abundant
as in the prophets and Apostles, rendering its subjects as authoritative as
teachers as the original Apostles. (7.) The office of the Spirit is to teach
and to guide. It is not merely intended to enlighten the mind in the knowledge
of truths contained un the Scriptures. It presents truth objectively to the
mind. It does not reveal new doctrines, much less doctrines opposed to those
revealed in the Scriptures; but it makes a new and independent revelation of
old doctrines. On this point Barclay is very explicit.41
His discussion of his second and third propositions, -- the one concerning-
"immediate revelation," and the other, "the Scriptures," -- sets forth this
doctrine at length. "We distinguish," he says, "between a revelation of a new
gospel and new doctrines, and a new revelation of the good old gospel and
doctrines; the last we plead for, but the first we utterly deny." Natural
reason reveals certain doctrines, but this is not inconsistent with a new
revelation of the same doctrines in the Scriptures. So the fact that the
gospel is revealed in the Scriptures is not inconsistent with its immediate
objective revelation to the soul by the Spirit.
Besides the great doctrines of salvation, there are
many things the Christian needs to know which are not contained in the
Scriptures. In these matters he is not left to his own guidance. The Spirit
"guides into all truth." "Therefore," says Barclay, "the Spirit of God leadeth,
instructeth, and teacheth every true Christian whatsoever is needful for him
to know." For example, whether He is to preach; and, if called to preach,
when, where, and what he shall preach; where he is to go, and in any emergency
what he ought to do. So the Spirit teaches us when and where we are to pray,
and what we are to pray for. As the Spirit's guidance extends to everything,
it should be sought and obeyed in all things.
Quakerism ignores the distinction between inspired and
uninspired men, except as to the measure of the Spirit's influence. He dwells
in all believers, and performs the same office in all. As the saints of old,
before the giving of the law, were under his instruction and guidance, so they
continued to enjoy his teaching after the law was given. All through the Old
Testament dispensation the people of God received immediate revelations and
directions. When Christ came there was a more copious communication of this
influence. These communications were not confined to either sex, or to any
class in the Church. They were not peculiar to the Apostles, or to ministers,
but to every one was given a manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal. The
state of the Church, as set forth in the New Testament as to this matter,
continues to the present time, except that the gifts bestowed are not of the
same miraculous character now that they were then. But as to his revealing,
enlightening, teaching, guiding operations, He is as much present with
believers now as during the apostolic age. Then all spake as the Spirit gave
them utterance. When Christians assembled together every one had his gift: one
a psalm, one a doctrine, another a revelation, another an interpretation.
Every one could speak; but it was to be done decently and in order. If
anything were revealed to one sitting by, he was to hold his peace until his
time came; for God is not the author of confusion. In 1 Cor. xiv. we have the
Quaker ideal or model of a Christian assembly. And as the Apostles went hither
and thither, not according to their own judgment, but supernaturally guided by
the Spirit, so the Spirit guides all believers in the ordinary affairs of
life, it they wait for the intimations of his will.
As this doctrine of the Spirit's guidance is the
fundamental principle of Quakerism, it is the source of all the peculiarities
by which the Society of Friends has ever been distinguished. If every man has
within himself an infallible guide as to truth and duty, he does not need
external teaching. If it be the office of the Spirit to reveal truth
objectively to the mind, and to indicate on all occasions the path of duty;
and if his revealing and guiding influence be universal, and immediate,
self-evidencing itself as divine, it must of necessity supersede all others;
just as the Scriptures supersede reason in matters of religion. The Quakers,
therefore, although, as has been shown, acknowledging the divine authority of
the Scriptures, make far less of them than other denominations of evangelical
Christians. They make very little of the Church and its ordinances; of the
Sabbath; of a stated ministry; and nothing of the sacraments as external
ordinances and means of grace. In all these respects their influence has been
hurtful to the cause of Christ, while it is cheerfully admitted that some of
the best Christians of our age belong to the Society of Friends.
§ 7. Objections to the Mystical
Theory.
The idea on which Mysticism is founded is Scriptural
and true. It is true that God has access to thne human soul. It is true that
He can, consistently with his own nature and with the laws of our being,
supernaturally and immediately reveal truth objectively to the mind, and
attend that revelation with evidence which produces an infallible assurance of
its truth and of its divine origin. It is also true that such revelations have
often been made to the children of men. But these cases of immediate
supernatural revelation belong to the category of miracles. They are rare and
are to be duly authenticated.
The common doctrine of the Christian Church is, that
God has at sundry times and in divers manners spoken to the children of men;
that what eye hath not seen, or ear heard, what never could have entered into
the heart of man, God has revealed by his Spirit to those whom He selected to
be his spokesmen to their fellow-men; that these revelations were
authenticated as divine, by their character, their effects, and by signs and
wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost; that these holy men
of old who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, communicated the
revelations which they had received not only orally, but in writing, employing
not the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;
so that we have in the sacred Scriptures the things of the Spirit recorded in
the words of the Spirit; which Scriptures, therefore, are the Word of God, --
i.e., what God says to man; what He declares to be true and obligatory,
-- and constitute for his Church the only infallible rule of faith and
practice.
Romanists, while admnitting the infallibility of the
written Word, still contend that it is not sufficient; and hold that God
continues in a supernatural manner to guide the Church by rendering its
bishops infallible teachers in all matters pertaining to truth and duty.
Mystics, making the same admission as to the
infallibility of Scripture, claim that the Spirit is given to every man as an
inward teacher and guide, whose instructions and influence are the highest
rule of faith, and sufficient, even without the Scriptures, to secure the
salvation of the soul.
Mysticism has no Foundation in the Scriptures.
The objections to the Romish and Mystical theory are
substantially the same.
1. There is no foundation for either in Scriptures. As
the Scriptures contain no promise of infallible guidance to bishops, so they
contain no promise of the Spirit as the immediate revealer of truth to every
man. Under the Old Testament dispensation the Spirit did indeed reveal the
mind and purposes of God; but it was to selected persons chosen to be
prophets, authenticated as divine messengers, whose instructions the people
were bound to receive as coming from God. In like manner, under the new
dispensation, our Lord selected twelve men, endowed them with plenary
knowledge of the Gospel, rendered them infallible as teachers, and required
all men to receive their instructions as the words of God. It is true that
during the apostolic age there were occasional communications made to a class
of persons called prophets. But this "gift of prophecy," that is, the gift of
speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit, was analogous to the gift of
miracles. The one has as obviously ceased as the other.
It is true, also, that our Lord promised to send the
Spirit, who was to abide with the Church, to dwell in his people, to be their
teacher, and to guide them into the knowledge of all truth. But what truth?
Not historical or scientific truth, but plainly revealed truth; truth which He
himself had taught, or made known by his authorized messengers. The Spirit is
indeed a teacher; and without his instructions there is no saving knowledge of
divine things, for the Apostle tells us, "The natural man receiveth not the
things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. ii. 14.) Spiritual
discernment, therefore, is the design and effect of the Spirit's teaching. And
the things discerned are "the things freely given to us of God," i. e.,
as the context shows, the things revealed to the Apostles and clearly made
known in the Scriptures.
The Apostle John tells his readers, "Ye have an
unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things" (1 John ii. 20), and again,
ver. 27, "The anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye
need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all
things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall
abide in Him." These passages teach what all evangelical Christians admit.
First, that true knowledge, or spiritual discernment of divine things, is due
to the inward teaching of the Holy Spirit; and secondly, that true faith, or
the infallible assurance of the truths revealed, is due in like manner to the
"demonstration of tine Spirit." (1 Cor. ii. 4.) The Apostle John also says:
"He that believeth on the Son of God, hath the witness in himself." (1 John v.
10.) Saving faith does not rest on the testinnony of the Church, nor on the
outward evidence of miracles and prophecy, but on the inward testimony of the
Spirit with and by the truth in our hearts. He who has this inward testimony
needs no other. He does not need to be told by other men what is truth; this
same anointing teaches him what is truth, and that no lie is of the truth.
Christians were not to believe every spirit. They were to try the spirits
whether they were of God. And the test or criterion of trial was the external,
authenticated revelation of God, as spiritually discerned and demonstrated by
the inward operations of the Spirit. So now when errorists come and tell the
people there is no God, no sin, no retribution, no need of a Saviour, or of
expiation, or of faith; that Jesus of Nazareth is not the Son of God, God
manifest in the flesh, the true Christian has no need to be told that these
are what the Apostle calls lies. He has an inward witness to the truth of the
record which God has given of his Son.
If the Bible gives no support to the Mystical doctrine
of the inward, supernatural, objective revelation of truth made by the Spirit
to every man, that doctrine is destitute of all foundation, for it is only by
the testimony of God that any such doctrine can be established.
Mysticism is contrary to the Scriptures.
2. The doctrine in question is not only destitute of
support from Scripture, but it contradicts the Scriptures. It is not only
opposed to isolated declarations of the Word of God, but to the whole revealed
plan of God's dealing with his people. Everywhere, and under all
dispensations, the rule of faith and duty has been the teaching of
authenticated messengers of God. The appeal has always been "to the law and
testimony." The prophets came saying, "Thus saith the Lord." Men were required
to believe and obey what was communicated to them, and not what the Spirit
revealed to each individual. It was the outward and not the inward word to
which they were to attend. And under the gospel the command of Christ to his
disciples, was, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mar. xvi. 15,
16), -- believeth, of course, the gospel which they preached. Faith cometh by
hearing. "How," asks the Apostle, "shall they believe in him of whom they have
not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" (Rom. x. 14.) God, he
tells us, hath determined to save men by the foolishness of preaching. (1 Cor.
i. 21.) It is the preaching of the cross he declares to be the power of God.
(Verse 18.) It is the gospel, the external revelation of the plan of salvation
through Jesus Christ, he says in Rom. i. 16, which "is the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the
Greek; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith."
This idea runs through the whole New Testament. Christ commissioned his
disciples to preach the gospel. He declared that to be the way in which men
were to be saved. They accordingly went forth preaching everywhere. This
preaching was to continue to the end of the world. Therefore, provision was
made for continuing the ministry. Men called and qualified by the Spirit, were
to be selected and set apart to this work by divine command. And it is in this
way, so far, the world has been converted. In no case do we find the Apostles
calling upon the people, whether Jews or Gentiles, to look within themselves,
to listen to the inner Word. They were to listen to the outward Word; to
believe what they heard, and were to pray for the Holy Spnrit to enable them
to understand, receive, and obey what was thus externally made known to them.
Contrary to the Facts of Experience.
3. The doctrine in question is no less contrary to fact
than it is to Scripture. The doctrine teaches that by the inward revelation of
the Spirit saving knowledge of truth and duty is given to every man. But all
experience shows that without the written Word, men everywhere and in all
ages, are ignorant of divine things, without God, without Christ, and without
hope in the world. The sun is not more obviously the source of light, than the
Bible is the source of divine knowledge. The absence of the one is as clearly
indicated as the absence of the other. It is incredible that an inward
revelation of saving truth is made to every man by the Holy Spirit, if the
appropriate effects of that revelation are nowhere manifested. It is to be
remembered that without the knowledge of God, there can be no religion.
Without right apprehensions of the Supreme Being, there can be no right
affections towards him. Without the knowledge of Christ, there can be no faith
in him. Without truth there can be no holiness, any more than there can be
vision without light. As right apprehensions of God, and holiness of heart and
life, are nowhere found where the Scriptures are unknown, it is plain that the
Scriptures, and not an inward light common to all men, are, by the ordinance
of God, the only source to us of saving and sanctifying kmnowledge.
There is a sense in which, as all evangelical
Christians believe, the Spirit is given to every man. He is present with every
human mind exciting to good and restraining from evil. To this the order, and
what there is of morality in the world, are due. Without this "common grace,"
or general influence of the Spirit, there would be no difference between our
world and hell; for hell is a place or state in which men are finally given up
of God. In like manner, there is a general providential efficiency of God by
which He cooperates with second causes, in the productions of the wonderful
phenomena of the external world. Without that cooeration -- the continued
guidance of mind -- the cosmos would become chaos. But the fact that this
providential efficiency of God is universal, is no proof that He everywhere
works miracles, that He constantly operates without the intervention of second
causes. So, also, the fact that the Spirit is present with every human mind,
and constantly enforces the truth present to that mind, is no proof that He
makes immediate, supernatural revelations to every human being. The fact is,
we cannot see without light. We have the sun to give us light. It is vain to
say that every man has an inward light sufficient to guide him without the
sun. Facts are against the theory.
No Criterion by which to judge of the Source qf
Inward Suggestions.
4. A fourth objection to the Mystical doctrine is that
there is no criterion by which a man can test these inward impulses or
revelations, and determine which are from the Spirit of God, and which are
from his own heart or from Satan, who often appears and acts as an angel of
light. This objection, Barclay says, "Bespeaketh much ignorance in the
opposers. . . . For it is one thing to affirm that the true and undoubted
revelation of God's Spirit is certain and infallible; and another thing to
affirm that this or that particular person or people is led infallibly by this
revelation in what they speak or write, because they affirm themselves to be
so led by the inward and immediate revelation of the Spirit."42
It is admitted that there is an inward and infallible testimony of the Spirit
in the hearts of believers to the truths objectively revealed in the
Scriptures. It is admitted, also, that there have been immediate revelations
of truth to the mind, as in the case of the prophets and Apostles, and that
these revelations authenticate themselves, or are attended with an infallible
assurance that they come from God. But these admissions do not invalidate the
objection as above stated. Granted that a man who receives a true revelation
knows that it is from God; how is the man who receives a false revelatioun to
know that it is not from God? Many men honestly believe themselves to be
inspired, who are under the influence of some evil spirit, -- their own it may
be. The assurance on certainty of conviction may be as strong in one case as
in the other. In the one it is well founded, in the other it is a delusion.
Irresistible conviction is not enough. It may satisfy the subject of it
himself. But it cannot either satisfy others, or be a criterion of truth.
Thousands have been, and still are, fully convinced that the false is true,
and that what is wrong is right. To tell men, therefore, to look within for an
authoritative guide, and to trust to their irresistible convictions, is to
give them a guide which will lead them to destruction. When God really makes
revelations to the soul, He not only gives an infallible assurance that the
revelation is divine, but accompanies it with evidence satisfactory to others
as well as to the recipient that it is from God. All his revelations have had
the seal both of internal and external evidence. And when the believer is
assured, by the testimony of the Spirit, of the truths of Scripture, he has
only a new kind of evidence of what is already anthenticated beyond all
rational contradiction. Our blessed Lord Himself said to the Jews, "If I do
not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not
me, believe the works." (John x. 37, 38.) He even goes so far as to say, "If I
had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had
sin." (John xv. 24.) The inward teaching and testimony of the Spirit are
Scriptural truths, and truths of inestimable value. But it is ruinous to put
them in the place of the divinely authenticated written Word.
<
