§ i. 5. 6 Heads of Ancient Mysticism enumerated. like imparting of God's honour to the Evil One. Although even in such a case deep fear and humiliation of heart would seem the more appropriate sentiment for ordinary Christians. For is it not a fearful and humbling thought, that mankind, that we ourselves, are, or have been, in danger of mistaking the work of God's enemy for His own? Further, it may be well to bear in mind that the noblest and most refined devotional tendencies have always had to bear the imputation of Mysticism, or some other equivalent word; as if to cultivate them were a mere indulgence of a dreamy, soaring, indistinct fancy. In this use of it, the word Mysticism has done probably as much harm in checking high contemplative devotion, as the kindred term, Asceticism, in discouraging Christian selfdiscipline. Thus much for the first impression, which the very application of the term to the Fathers would make on a considerate person, as yet ignorant of their writings. He would expect, almost certainly, to find them imbued with devotional feelings of an unusually high order; and he would be prepared for the possibility, that even those views of theirs, which might seem at first glance overstrained, fantastic, or unnatural, might turn out in the end to be portions of true Christian wisdom. (5.) What now are the particulars of the Fathers' imputed Mysticism? i. e. in what respects would they be commonly charged with an undue anxiety to make out supernatural meanings and interferences? The following heads would seem to comprehend the greater part of their supposed delinquencies in this kind : 1. Their interpretations of Scripture are said to be far-fetched and extravagant; extracting figurative, theological allusions out of the most irrelevant or insignificant details of language or history. 2. Correspondent to this is their mode of treating natural ob jects, and the truths of philosophy and common life; fancying every where indications of that system, on which their own hearts were set. 3. They were mystics in their notions of providential interference, whether in the way of judgment, deliverance, or warning. To which head may be referred whatever they state of the exercise of the gift of prophecy in their times; as also their Inadequate Defences of it in modern Times. accounts of reputed miracles, and of the sensible agency of evil spirits, and of their own and others' warfare with them. 4. Finally, they are blamed for Mysticism, properly so called, in their moral and devotional rules; i. e. for dwelling too much on counsels of perfection, tending (as is affirmed) to contemplation rather than action, to monastic rather than social and practical virtue. These are the sort of imputations on which the changes have been rung, for the last two centuries, by those who have wished to evade the testimony of the Fathers, without setting them down distinctly as deliberate impostors. (6.) It may be added, that many of their professed advocates, (Warburton for example,) have in fact given up their cause, as far as concerns every one of these representations. For what, in reality, does his defence of them come to, even when he is led to state their case most favourably; e. g. in the Preface to Julian? Just to this, and no more: that they might be trusted in their relations of things which came within the scope of their own knowledge, provided there was no room for surmising any thing miraculous and again, that on other subjects, whether as reasoners or as narrators, they were not weaker, but a little wiser, than Pagan and Jewish writers of the same date. It is true that Warburton belonged to a school, which has a temptation of its own for slighting the Fathers, over and above differences in particular doctrines; a school, whose leading principle is, that theology, like other sciences, improves by time: or, (to use the words of one of its most plausible advocates) that "Christianity was in its infancy, at most in its childhood, when these men wrote; and therefore it is no wonder that they spake as children, that they understood as children, that they thought as children. This was according to the economy they were then under 1." Such writers, when they speak most modestly of themselves, and most respectfully of antiquity, do not, however, hesitate to make use of the old simile, of a dwarf seeing further than a giant, when raised on a giant's shoulders; imagining it to be as applicable 1 Bishop Law, as quoted by Middleton, p. 57. § i. 6. 8 Ill Effect of shrinking from the mystical View. § i. 7. to religion, as it is to physical and human learning; and, when they would most appear to advocate the ancients, cannot of course refrain from stigmatizing them as inadequate judges of Christian truth, infected sometimes with Platonic, sometimes with Rabbinical error: and thus, while with a sort of candour they excuse the men at the expense of the age, they do the Adversary's work, by detracting from their authority, and withdrawing attention and deference from their writings. But even those who in their hearts really loved to lean on Antiquity, and would have been uneasy, if they had not the suffrage of the Fathers with them, have not always taken the course most likely to win them due respect. Whether it were that they feared to commit themselves, or that they shrunk before popular notions,- -or as a mere matter of taste and feeling,—the champions of the Fathers, for many years past, have generally been content to claim credit for them only as witnesses to certain palpable facts of their time: the inevitable consequence of which has been, that even diligent and earnest inquirers have been satisfied with a second-hand knowledge of their writings; and often, when they have come in to fill their proper place in argumentative discussions, they have nevertheless been far from occupying the room which justly belonged to them, in our theological views and impressions. There are, and have been, praiseworthy attempts to raise their credit, by drawing attention to those portions of their literature, which seemed to have most in common with modern ideas, whether in the way of general reasoning with unbelievers, or of refined devotional feeling, or of eloquent morality. But the very circumstance of such selections being made with a view to modern prejudices, shows that they can do no more than palliate the evil. When a reader passes from specimens of that kind to the whole body of any Father's writings, he is apt to feel as if he had been unfairly dealt with, and is inclined rather to be the more intolerant of the many things which he is sure to meet with, alien to his former tastes and habits of thought. (7.) May it not with reason be suspected, that the root of the matter lies deeper, and that in order to arrive at it, we must make up our minds thoroughly to consider the whole subject Opposition between it and popular Notions. 9 ab initio? It may perhaps turn out that the boldest way of § i. 7. meeting the difficulty is the most rational, and ultimately the most consoling. We must not be startled, though we find ourselves compelled to own, that modern and ancient theology are to a great extent irreconcileable; that if popular notions are right, the Fathers are indeed "mystical" in a bad sense, and that, in all the several departments above mentioned. Thus, in respect, first, of Scripture interpretation, the received doctrine of this age seems to be, that nothing ought to be figuratively or typically explained, except on the authority of Scripture itself1; it being assumed, that we can no otherwise be certified of the divinely intended relation, necessary to make up the nature of a real Type. Now those who hold this rule must necessarily think meanly of the Fathers as expounders of Scripture, since in every paragraph almost we find some allegory, not scriptural according to the required test. Secondly, in respect of allusions moral or theological, regularly and uniformly deduced from the contemplation of the creatures of God, in the manner, e. g. of Boyle's Occasional Reflections: it would probably be considered a candid judgment, in our time, which should allow that such might constitute tolerable poetry: but to consider them as a part of theology, to regard them as having been from the beginning intended by the Creator, and the creation ordered with a view to them;-who is there among us, that would not at first be tempted to reject such a theory as overstrained and merely fanciful? Thirdly, consider the tone of thought, which is accounted safest and meets with most encouragement in our days, concerning the intimations of God's mysterious providence, whether national or individual. Is it not a subject, that, as things are, even sincere-minded persons shrink from? They are afraid of trusting themselves with it, though but in thought. What is meant will be perceived in a moment, if people will reflect what their first impressions were, on reading, e. g. the Journal of Archbishop Laud, 1 Bp. Van Mildert, B. L. 239, ap. Horne, Introd. ii. 724; Macknight, on St. Paul's Ep. iv. 439. § i. 8. 10 The Inquiry limited to Points of general Agreement : those portions of it which detail supposed providential warnings. Or, again, how backward we all find ourselves in confessing our sense of God's judgments, public and private, when in our thoughts we can hardly fail to perceive them. I am far from asserting that this backwardness is not both pious and reasonable, taking all circumstances into account: but does it not imply a great change, either in men's condition or opinions, or in both, since the days of St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian? Lastly, the difference in moral sentiments is too obvious to be denied. The cheerful, liberal, indulgent side is the popular one, now, in all questions of ethics: severity, strictness, self-denial, are but so far approved, as their immediate good effect is seen and understood. Need it be remarked, that the direct contrary is the case of the Primitive Church? On the whole, the discrepancies between the two ages, occasioning the imputation of Mysticism to the ancients, are far beyond being accounted for by local, accidental, or temporary circumstances; they must be referred to some difference in first principles and unless we are prepared to say positively, with the philosophic theologians above mentioned, that theology is, like other sciences, really advancing, of course, as the world grows older; we cannot but in candour allow it at least possible, before examination, that the ancients may have been in the right, and we in the wrong. (8.) In order to judge of this fairly, one should begin by stating, with its due limitations, the real judgment of Christian Antiquity on the several matters above enumerated, an undertaking evidently far beyond the limits of such an essay as the present: one can only endeavour to give some faint specimen of the results, which, it is conceived, more extensive inquiry would establish; premising, however, the following cautions, as necessary to be kept in view throughout the inquiry. First, that since we are to speak of the Fathers collectively, we must be careful to select those points, in which they exhibit a tolerable general agreement. This limitation disposes at once of many of the most plausible objections to the views of Antiquity, and also of many of the unworthy and inadequate allegations of |